Page 1 of 61

SEC Petition Evaluation Report

Petition SEC-00204

Report Rev #:0 Report Submittal Date: November 13, 2012

Subject Expert(s): Mike Mahathy, Pat McCloskey

Site Expert(s): N/A

Petition Administrative Summary

Petition Under Evaluation

Petition # Petition 

Type

Petition

Receipt Date

Qualification 

Date

DOE/AWE Facility Name

SEC-00204 83.13 June 5, 2012 July 24, 2012 Baker Brothers

Petitioner-Requested Class Definition 

All employees who worked in any area of Baker Brothers, in Toledo, Ohio, from June 1, 1943 through December 

31, 1996.

Class Evaluated by NIOSH

All employees who worked in any area of the Baker Brothers site in Toledo, Ohio, from June 1, 1943 through 

December 31, 1996.

NIOSH-Proposed Class to be Added to the SEC

All Atomic Weapons Employees who worked at the Baker Brothers site in Toledo, Ohio, during the period from 

June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, 

occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters 

established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

Related Petition Summary Information 

SEC Petition Tracking #(s) Petition Type DOE/AWE Facility Name Petition Status

N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Related Evaluation Report Information 

Report Title DOE/AWE Facility Name

N/A N/A 

ORAU Lead Technical Evaluator: Mike Mahathy ORAU Peer Review Completed By: Michael Kubiak

Peer Review Completed By: [Signature on File] 11/13/2012

Tom Tomes Date

[Signature on File] 11/13/2012 SEC Petition Evaluation Reviewed By:

J. W. Neton Date

[Signature on File] 11/14/2012 SEC Evaluation Approved By:

Stuart L. Hinnefeld Date
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

2 of 61

This page intentionally left blank
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

3 of 61

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00204, Baker Brothers

This evaluation report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

addresses a class of employees proposed for addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) per the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7384 et seq. (EEOICPA) and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as 

Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000.

Petitioner-Requested Class Definition

Petition SEC-00204 was received on June 5, 2012, and qualified on July 24, 2012. The petitioner 

requested that NIOSH consider the following class: All employees who worked in any area of Baker 

Brothers, in Toledo, Ohio, from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1996.

Class Evaluated by NIOSH

Based on its preliminary research, NIOSH accepted the petitioner-requested class. NIOSH evaluated 

the following class: All employees who worked in any area of the Baker Brothers site in Toledo, 

Ohio, from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1996.

NIOSH-Proposed Class(es) to be Added to the SEC

Based on its full research of the class under evaluation, NIOSH has defined a single class of 

employees for which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSHproposed class includes all Atomic Weapons Employees who worked at the Baker Brothers site in 

Toledo, Ohio, during the period from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944, for a number of work 

days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of

employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort. The time period of the NIOSH-proposed class 

was reduced from that of the evaluated class (see Section 3.0 below) because NIOSH has data and 

methods to estimate internal and external doses with sufficient accuracy for the period from January 1, 

1945 through December 31, 1996.

Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction

NIOSH finds it is not feasible to estimate internal exposures with sufficient accuracy for all workers at 

the site from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944. NIOSH has confirmed that Baker Brothers 

workers were exposed to unmonitored releases of uranium metals and dust. NIOSH has not identified 

personal monitoring data, or sufficient source term data, or sufficient information on radiological 

controls used during the AWE operations period. Consequently, NIOSH cannot reconstruct internal 

uranium doses with sufficient accuracy for the period June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944. With 

the exception of this class, per EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1), NIOSH has established that it 

has access to sufficient information to: (1) estimate the maximum radiation dose, for every type of 

cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed, that could have been incurred in plausible 

circumstances by any member of the class; or (2) estimate radiation doses more precisely than an 
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

4 of 61

estimate of maximum dose. Information available from the site documentation and additional 

resources is sufficient to document or estimate the maximum internal and external potential exposure 

to members of the evaluated class under plausible circumstances during the period from January 1, 

1945 through December 31, 1996.

The NIOSH dose reconstruction feasibility findings are based on the following:

Principal sources of internal radiation for members of the proposed class included exposures to 

natural uranium metals. Baker Brothers received uranium rods from MED and machined them 

into slugs. The modes of exposure were inhalation and ingestion during the processing of these 

metals.

NIOSH has found no indication of an internal dose monitoring program at the Baker Brothers site 

during the AWE operations period. NIOSH has identified air sample results from three different 

days in 1943 and 1944, but they are insufficient to estimate intakes. NIOSH has insufficient 

information regarding radiological controls used by Baker Brothers to support the use of existing 

NIOSH procedures to bound possible internal uranium exposures during AWE operations at Baker 

Brothers. Based on lack of sufficient data for Baker Brothers workers, sufficiently accurate 

internal dose reconstruction is not feasible for the AWE operational period from June 1, 1943 

through December 31, 1944.

NIOSH has obtained post-AWE breathing zone air data and remediation period bioassay data. 

NIOSH has determined that the available data, combined with methods available in existing 

NIOSH procedures, are adequate to support sufficiently accurate internal dose reconstruction for 

the Baker Brothers residual radiation and remediation periods from January 1, 1945 through 

December 31, 1996.

Principal sources of external radiation for members of the proposed class included exposures to 

gamma and beta radiation associated with handling and working in proximity to natural uranium 

metals. The modes of exposure were direct radiation, submersion in potentially-contaminated air, 

and exposure to contaminated surfaces.

NIOSH has found no indication of an external dose monitoring program at the Baker Brothers site 

during the AWE operations period. NIOSH has obtained breathing zone air data, and area 

monitoring data during the Baker Brothers residual radiation and remediation periods. In addition, 

NIOSH has obtained worker bioassay data during the site remediation period.

NIOSH has determined that sufficiently accurate reconstruction of external doses for Baker 

Brothers workers is feasible for the AWE operational period from June 1, 1943 through December 

31, 1944 using existing NIOSH procedures pertaining to the handling of uranium metal. NIOSH 

has determined that sufficiently accurate reconstruction of external doses is feasible for the 

residual radiation and remediation periods (January 1, 1945 through December 31, 1996) using 

available area and personnel monitoring data and the assumptions and approaches presented in 

existing NIOSH procedures.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

5 of 61

NIOSH has found records to indicate that a medical monitoring program existed from the start of 

AWE operations. Chest X-rays were scheduled in June 1943 for Robin Hood Hospital in Toledo. 

Therefore, NIOSH finds that it is not applicable to reconstruct occupational medical dose for 

Baker Brothers workers because medical X-ray procedures would have been performed at an offsite, non-EEOICPA-covered facility.

Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1), NIOSH determined that there is insufficient information to 

either: (1) estimate the maximum radiation dose, for every type of cancer for which radiation 

doses are reconstructed, that could have been incurred under plausible circumstances by any 

member of the class; or (2) estimate the radiation doses of members of the class more precisely 

than a maximum dose estimate.

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct radiation doses for the 

proposed class, NIOSH intends to use any internal and external monitoring data that may become 

available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using existing NIOSH dose 

reconstruction processes or procedures). Therefore, dose reconstructions for individuals employed 

at Baker Brothers during the period from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944, but who do 

not qualify for inclusion in the SEC, may be performed using these data as appropriate.

Health Endangerment Determination

Per EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3), a health endangerment determination is required because 

NIOSH has determined that it does not have sufficient information to estimate dose for the members 

of the proposed class from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944.

NIOSH did not identify any evidence supplied by the petitioners or from other resources that would 

establish that the proposed class was exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have 

involved exceptionally high-level exposures. However, evidence indicates that some workers in the 

proposed class may have accumulated substantial chronic exposures through episodic intakes of 

uranium, combined with external exposures to gamma and beta radiation. Therefore, 42 C.F.R. § 

83.13(c)(3)(ii) requires NIOSH to specify that health may have been endangered for those workers 

covered by this evaluation who were employed for at least 250 aggregated work days either solely 

under their employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for other 

SEC classes.

For the period from January 1, 1945 through December 31, 1996, a health endangerment 

determination is not required because NIOSH has determined that it has sufficient information to 

estimate dose for the members of the evaluated class.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

6 of 61

This page intentionally left blank
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

7 of 61

Table of Contents

1.0 Purpose and Scope........................................................................................................................ 11

2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 11

3.0 SEC-00204, Baker Brothers Class Definitions ............................................................................ 12

3.1 Petitioner-Requested Class Definition and Basis................................................................ 12

3.2 Class Evaluated by NIOSH ................................................................................................. 13

3.3 NIOSH-Proposed Class to be Added to the SEC................................................................ 13

4.0 Data Sources Reviewed by NIOSH to Evaluate the Class........................................................... 13

4.1 Site Profile Technical Basis Documents (TBDs)................................................................ 14

4.2 Technical Information Bulletins.......................................................................................... 14

4.3 Facility Employees and Experts.......................................................................................... 15

4.4 Previous Dose Reconstructions........................................................................................... 15

4.5 NIOSH Site Research Database .......................................................................................... 16

4.6 Documentation and/or Affidavits Provided by Petitioners ................................................. 16

5.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Class Evaluated by NIOSH......................................... 16

5.1 Baker Brothers Plant and Process Descriptions .................................................................. 16

5.2 Radiological Exposure Sources from Baker Brothers Operations...................................... 21

5.2.1 Internal Radiological Exposure Sources from Baker Brothers Operations............. 21

5.2.2 External Radiological Exposure Sources from Baker Brothers Operations............ 22

5.2.2.1 Photon....................................................................................................... 22

5.2.2.2 Beta........................................................................................................... 24

5.2.2.3 Neutron..................................................................................................... 24

5.2.3 Incidents .................................................................................................................. 25

6.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Class Evaluated by NIOSH ............................. 25

6.1 Available Baker Brothers Internal Monitoring Data ........................................................... 25

6.2 Available Baker Brothers External Monitoring Data.......................................................... 31

7.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Class Evaluated by NIOSH ...................................... 31

7.1 Pedigree of Baker Brothers Data......................................................................................... 32

7.1.1 Internal Monitoring Data Pedigree Review............................................................. 32

7.1.2 External Monitoring Data Pedigree Review............................................................ 32

7.2 Evaluation of Bounding Internal Radiation Doses at Baker Brothers................................. 33

7.2.1 Evaluation of Bounding AWE Process-Related Internal Doses.............................. 33

7.2.1.1 Bioassay Results....................................................................................... 33

7.2.1.2 Airborne Levels........................................................................................ 33

7.2.1.3 Alternative Data Sources for Bounding Internal Dose............................. 33

7.2.2 Evaluation of Bounding Residual Radiation and Remediation Period 

Internal Doses.......................................................................................................... 34

7.2.2.1 Bioassay Results....................................................................................... 34

7.2.2.2 Airborne Levels........................................................................................ 34
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

8 of 61

7.2.2.3 Alternative Data Sources for Bounding Internal Dose............................. 34

7.2.3 Methods for Bounding Internal Dose at Baker Brothers......................................... 34

7.2.3.1 Methods for Bounding AWE Operational Period Internal Dose.............. 34

7.2.3.2 Methods for Bounding Residual Radiation Period Internal Dose ............ 35

7.2.4 Internal Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion ............................................. 39

7.3 Evaluation of Bounding External Radiation Doses at Baker Brothers................................ 39

7.3.1 Evaluation of Bounding AWE Process-Related External Doses ............................ 39

7.3.2 Evaluation of Bounding Residual Radiation Period External Doses ...................... 39

7.3.3 Baker Brothers Occupational Medical X-Ray Examinations.................................. 39

7.3.4 Methods for Bounding External Dose at Baker Brothers........................................ 40

7.3.4.1 Methods for Bounding AWE Operational Period External Dose ............ 40

7.3.5 External Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion ............................................ 41

7.4 Evaluation of Petition Basis for SEC-00204 ....................................................................... 41

7.4.1 Lack of Monitoring During AWE Operations Period ............................................. 41

7.4.2 Lack of Monitoring During Residual Radiation and Remediation Periods ............ 42

7.5 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00204.................................................. 43

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00204...................................................... 44

9.0 Class Conclusion for Petition SEC-00204 ................................................................................... 44

10.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 47

Attachment 1: Compilation of Radiation Survey Readings.................................................................. 51

Attachment 2: Data Capture Synopsis................................................................................................... 57
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

9 of 61

Tables

4-1: No. of Baker Brothers Claims Submitted Under the Dose Reconstruction Rule .......................... 15

5-1: Uranium Air Sample Data during MED Operations...................................................................... 22

5-2: Beta and Photon Emissions of Primary Interest............................................................................. 23

6-1: Results from 1989 ORNL Surveys at Baker Brothers................................................................... 26

6-2: Results from 1989 Bechtel Surveys at Baker Brothers.................................................................. 28

6-3: Uranium Bioassay Results for Baker Brothers.............................................................................. 29

7-1: Derived Uranium Air Concentrations............................................................................................ 37

7-2: Summarized air concentrations (pCi/m3)....................................................................................... 38

7-3: Baker Brothers External Dose from Bare Metal While Machining Uranium................................ 40

7-4: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00204.......................................................................... 43

Figures

5-1: Baker Brothers Site Map Circa 1938 ............................................................................................. 17

5-2: Lathe Used for Machining Uranium Rods at Baker Brothers........................................................ 20
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

10 of 61

This page intentionally left blank
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

11 of 61

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for SEC-00204

ATTRIBUTION AND ANNOTATION: This is a single-author document. All conclusions drawn from 

the data presented in this evaluation were made by the ORAU Team Lead Technical Evaluator: Mike 

Mahathy, Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU). The rationales for all conclusions in this 

document are explained in the associated text.

1.0 Purpose and Scope

This report evaluates the feasibility of reconstructing doses for all employees who worked in any area 

of the Baker Brothers site in Toledo, Ohio, from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1996. It 

provides information and analyses germane to considering a petition for adding a class of employees 

to the congressionally-created SEC.

This report does not make any determinations concerning the feasibility of dose reconstruction that 

necessarily apply to any individual energy employee who might require a dose reconstruction from 

NIOSH. This report also does not contain the final determination as to whether the proposed class 

will be added to the SEC (see Section 2.0).

This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of EEOICPA, 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, 

and the guidance contained in the Division of Compensation Analysis and Support’s (DCAS) Internal 

Procedures for the Evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort Petitions, DCAS-PR-004.1

2.0 Introduction

Both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 require NIOSH to evaluate qualified petitions requesting that the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) add a class of employees to the SEC. The 

evaluation is intended to provide a fair, science-based determination of whether it is feasible to 

estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation doses of the class of employees through NIOSH dose 

reconstructions.2 

42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1) states: Radiation doses can be estimated with sufficient accuracy if NIOSH 

has established that it has access to sufficient information to estimate the maximum radiation dose, 

for every type of cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed, that could have been incurred in 

plausible circumstances by any member of the class, or if NIOSH has established that it has access to 

sufficient information to estimate the radiation doses of members of the class more precisely than an 

estimate of the maximum radiation dose.

Under 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3), if it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses 

for members of the class, then NIOSH must determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that such 

radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of the class. The regulation requires 

 

1 DCAS was formerly known as the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS).

2 NIOSH dose reconstructions under EEOICPA are performed using the methods promulgated under 42 C.F.R. pt. 82 and 

the detailed implementation guidelines available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

12 of 61

NIOSH to assume that any duration of unprotected exposure may have endangered the health of 

members of a class when it has been established that the class may have been exposed to radiation 

during a discrete incident likely to have involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring 

during nuclear criticality incidents. If the occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level exposure has 

not been established, then NIOSH is required to specify that health was endangered for those workers 

who were employed for at least 250 aggregated work days within the parameters established for the 

class or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other SEC 

classes.

NIOSH is required to document its evaluation in a report, and to do so, relies upon both its own dose 

reconstruction expertise as well as technical support from its contractor, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities (ORAU). Once completed, NIOSH provides the report to both the petitioner(s) and the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (Board). The Board will consider the NIOSH 

evaluation report, together with the petition, petitioner(s) comments, and other information the Board 

considers appropriate, in order to make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on whether or not 

to add one or more classes of employees to the SEC. Once NIOSH has received and considered the 

advice of the Board, the Director of NIOSH will propose a decision on behalf of HHS. The Secretary 

of HHS will make the final decision, taking into account the NIOSH evaluation, the advice of the 

Board, and the proposed decision issued by NIOSH. As part of this decision process, petitioners may 

seek a review of certain types of final decisions issued by the Secretary of HHS.3

3.0 SEC-00204, Baker Brothers Class Definitions

The following subsections address the evolution of the class definition for SEC-00204, Baker 

Brothers. When a petition is submitted, the requested class definition is reviewed as submitted. 

Based on its review of the available site information and data, NIOSH will make a determination 

whether to qualify for full evaluation all, some, or no part of the petitioner-requested class. If some 

portion of the petitioner-requested class is qualified, NIOSH will specify that class along with a 

justification for any modification of the petitioner’s class. After a full evaluation of the qualified 

class, NIOSH will determine whether to propose a class for addition to the SEC and will specify that 

proposed class definition.

3.1 Petitioner-Requested Class Definition and Basis

Petition SEC-00204 was received on June 5, 2012, and qualified on July 24, 2012. The petitioner 

requested that NIOSH consider the following class: All employees who worked in any area of Baker 

Brothers, in Toledo, Ohio, from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1996.

The petitioner provided information and affidavit statements in support of the petitioner’s belief that 

accurate dose reconstruction over time is impossible for the Baker Brothers workers in question. 

NIOSH deemed the following information and affidavit statements sufficient to qualify SEC-00204

for evaluation:

 

3

See 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 for a full description of the procedures summarized here. Additional internal procedures are 

available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

13 of 61

Petition Basis: Radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the 

proposed class were not monitored either through personal monitoring or through area monitoring.

In support of this basis, the petitioner made the following statement referring to the Energy 

Employee: “He was not monitored for uranium and thorium.”

Based on its Baker Brothers research and data capture efforts, NIOSH determined that it has access to 

limited process information, air sampling, radiological surveys, and dosimetry data for Baker Brothers 

workers during the time period under evaluation. However, NIOSH also determined that air 

sampling, radiological surveys, and dosimetry records are not complete for all time periods or for 

uranium. NIOSH concluded that there is sufficient documentation to support, for at least part of the 

requested time period, the petition basis that both internal and external radiation exposures and 

radiation doses were not adequately monitored at Baker Brothers, either through personal monitoring 

or area monitoring. The information and statements provided by the petitioner qualified the petition 

for further consideration by NIOSH, the Board, and HHS. The details of the petition basis are 

addressed in Section 7.4.

3.2 Class Evaluated by NIOSH

Based on its preliminary research, NIOSH accepted the petitioner-requested class. Therefore, NIOSH 

defined the following class for further evaluation: All employees who worked in any area of the Baker 

Brothers site in Toledo, Ohio, from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1996.

3.3 NIOSH-Proposed Class to be Added to the SEC

Based on its research of the class under evaluation, NIOSH has defined a single class of employees for 

which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSH-proposed class 

to be added to the SEC includes all Atomic Weapons Employees who worked at the Baker Brothers 

site in Toledo, Ohio, during the period from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944, for a number 

of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of

employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort. The time period of the NIOSH-proposed class 

was reduced from that of the evaluated class because NIOSH has data and methods to estimate 

internal and external doses with sufficient accuracy for the period from January 1, 1945 through 

December 31, 1996.

4.0 Data Sources Reviewed by NIOSH to Evaluate the Class

As is standard practice, NIOSH completed an extensive database and Internet search for information 

regarding Baker Brothers. The database search included the DOE Legacy Management Considered 

Sites database, the DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) database, the Energy 

Citations database, and the Hanford Declassified Document Retrieval System. In addition to general 

Internet searches, the NIOSH Internet search included OSTI OpenNet Advanced searches, OSTI 

Information Bridge Fielded searches, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Agency-wide 

Documents Access and Management (ADAMS) web searches, the DOE Office of Human Radiation 
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

14 of 61

Experiments website, and the DOE-National Nuclear Security Administration-Nevada Site Officesearch. Attachment 2 contains a summary of Baker Brothers documents. The summary specifically 

identifies data capture details and general descriptions of the documents retrieved.

In addition to the database and Internet searches listed above, NIOSH identified and reviewed 

numerous data sources to determine information relevant to determining the feasibility of dose 

reconstruction for the class of employees under evaluation. This included determining the availability 

of information on personal monitoring, area monitoring, industrial processes, and radiation source 

materials. The following subsections summarize the data sources identified and reviewed by NIOSH.

4.1 Site Profile Technical Basis Documents (TBDs)

A Site Profile provides specific information concerning the documentation of historical practices at 

the specified site. Dose reconstructors can use the Site Profile to evaluate internal and external 

dosimetry data for monitored and unmonitored workers, and to supplement, or substitute for, 

individual monitoring data. A Site Profile consists of an Introduction and five Technical Basis 

Documents (TBDs) that provide process history information, information on personal and area 

monitoring, radiation source descriptions, and references to primary documents relevant to the 

radiological operations at the site. The Site Profile for a small site may consist of a single document. 

Although there is not a specific site profile for the Baker Brothers site, as part of NIOSH’s evaluation 

detailed herein, it examined the following TBD for insights into Baker Brothers operations or related 

topics/operations at other sites:

Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals; Battelle-TBD-6000, 

Rev. 01; effective June 17, 2011; SRDB Ref ID: 101251

4.2 Technical Information Bulletins

A Technical Information Bulletin is a general working document that provides guidance for preparing 

dose reconstructions at particular sites or categories of sites. NIOSH reviewed the following 

Technical Information Bulletins as part of its evaluation:

Estimation of Ingestion Intakes, OCAS-TIB-009, Rev. 0, NIOSH Office of Compensation 

Analysis and Support; April 13, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 22397

Dose Reconstruction During Residual Radioactivity Periods at Atomic Weapons Employer 

Facilities; ORAUT-OTIB-0070, Rev. 01; effective March 5, 2012; SRDB Ref ID: 108851

Guidance on Assigning Occupational X-ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-rays Administered Off 

Site; ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Rev. 00; January 3, 2011; SRDB Ref ID: 89563
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

15 of 61

4.3 Facility Employees and Experts

To obtain additional site information, NIOSH routinely interviews former site employees. NIOSH 

attempted to conduct interviews for this evaluation but were not able to locate former workers from 

the 1943-1944 operational period. As a result, no interviews were conducted of the Baker Brothers 

site workers who worked during the 1943-1944 operational period.

4.4 Previous Dose Reconstructions

NIOSH reviewed its NIOSH DCAS Claims Tracking System (referred to as NOCTS) to locate 

EEOICPA-related dose reconstructions that might provide information relevant to the petition 

evaluation. Table 4-1 summarizes the results of this review. (NOCTS data available as of October 

24, 2012)

Table 4-1: No. of Baker Brothers Claims Submitted Under the Dose Reconstruction Rule

Description Totals

Total number of claims submitted for dose reconstruction 4

a

Total number of claims submitted for energy employees who worked during the period under 

evaluation (June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1996) 4

Number of dose reconstructions completed for energy employees who worked during the period 

under evaluation (i.e., the number of such claims completed by NIOSH and submitted to the 

Department of Labor for final approval).

4

Number of claims for which internal dosimetry records were obtained for the identified years in the 

evaluated class definition 0

Number of claims for which external dosimetry records were obtained for the identified years in the 

evaluated class definition 0

a Only two of the four claimants had recorded employment during the AWE operational period at Baker Brothers.

NIOSH reviewed each claim to determine whether internal and/or external personal monitoring 

records could be obtained for the employee. NIOSH reviewed dose reconstructions executed for the 

four existing Baker Brothers claims. Only two of the four claims represent claimants who worked 

during the AWE operations period. For one of the claims, the dose reconstruction completed in 2007 

used data presented in ORAUT-OTIB-0004 which has since been cancelled. It appears the claimant 

was included in another site’s SEC class and no further dose reconstruction has been performed. For 

the second claim with employment during the AWE operations period, the dose reconstruction used 

data given in Battelle-TBD-6000 to bound internal and external doses. Dose reconstructions for the 

two remaining claims with employment during the residual radiation period were based on guidance 

for external and internal dose assignments given in Battelle-TBD-6000.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

16 of 61

4.5 NIOSH Site Research Database

NIOSH also examined its Site Research Database (SRDB) to locate documents supporting the 

assessment of the evaluated class. One hundred fifty-six documents in this database were identified as 

pertaining to Baker Brothers. These documents were evaluated for their relevance to this petition. The 

documents include historical background on facility operations and medical surveillance as well as 

limited results of air and surface contamination sampling.

4.6 Documentation and/or Affidavits Provided by Petitioners

In qualifying and evaluating the petition, NIOSH reviewed the following documents submitted by the 

petitioners:

Form B - 83.13; received June 5, 2012; DSA Ref ID: 116870 (Form B, 2012)

Petition Authorization Form; received July 31, 2012; DSA Ref ID: 117401 (Authorization, 2012)

Supporting Document-Medical Records; received June 5, 2012; DSA Ref ID: 116871 (Support 

2012a)

Supporting Documents-Fact Sheet, Cover Letter, and Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for 

the Baker Brothers Site; received June 21, 2012; DSA Ref ID: 117100 (Support, 2012b)

5.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Class Evaluated by 

NIOSH

The following subsections summarize both radiological operations at Baker Brothers from June 1, 

1943 through December 31, 1996 and the information available to NIOSH to characterize particular 

processes and radioactive source materials. From available sources NIOSH has gathered process and 

source descriptions, information regarding the identity and quantities of each radionuclide of concern, 

and information describing processes through which radiation exposures may have occurred and the 

physical environment in which they may have occurred. The information included within this 

evaluation report is intended only to be a summary of the available information. 

5.1 Baker Brothers Plant and Process Descriptions

Baker Brothers was located at 2551-2555 Harleau Place at the intersection with Post Street in Toledo, 

Ohio, on a 19-acre site (Survey, 1996). Baker Brothers received uranium rods from the Manhattan 

Engineer District (MED) in 1943 and 1944 and machined them into slugs for use in early MED 

reactors at Clinton Engineering and Hanford. The Baker Brothers commercial property consisted of 

several buildings as shown on the 1938 site map in Figure 5-1 (Survey, 1992). For the period under 

evaluation, approximately thirty-five persons were tasked with the AWE work (Site Visit, Sep1943; 

Woodward, 1944; Monitoring, 1944). NIOSH does not have information on the total number of 

workers at the site from 1943 through 1944.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

17 of 61

Source: Survey, 1992, pdf p. 27

Figure 5-1: Baker Brothers Site Map Circa 1938

Immediately surrounding the site were commercial businesses to the north and south, residences to the 

east, and several railroad tracks with residences beyond the tracks to the west. A rail spur also entered

the site from the railroad tracks to the west. The exterior ground cover at the site was mostly asphalt 

or concrete with small patches of grass near the roads. The exception to this was the courtyard area 

north of Area 8, which was covered by approximately 24 inches of gravel. This gravel was backfilled 

after contaminated soils and debris were removed and taken to Ottawa Lake, Michigan in November 

1991 (Nimmagadda, 1995).

There were four main buildings (known as North, East, South, and West). The interiors of each of the 

larger buildings (North and South Buildings) were subdivided into various numbered areas, as shown 

in Figure 5-1. The buildings were erected in the 1920s; they were brick with a saw-tooth roof 

configuration and concrete floors. The exception was the South Building, which had aluminum siding 

in Area 1 and wooden floors in Areas 3A, 4, and 5. 

North Building: Located at 2555 Harleau Place; 40,000 ft2consisting of Areas 7 through 12A. 

Uranium work was conducted solely in Area 7 (Site Characterization, 1995). The courtyard 

behind this building was used to stage uranium metal rods during Manhattan Engineering District

(MED) operations, and after 1944, was used for storage of electric motors and transformers.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

18 of 61

East Building: Located at 2551 Harleau Place; 8,000 ft2consisting of a two-story, unoccupied 

structure formerly used for offices. During FUSRAP Characterization in 1989, it was only used to 

store furniture.

South Building: Located at 1000 Post Street; 45,000 ft2consisting of Areas 1, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6. It 

was used to support operations during MED work, and afterwards, for offices and electric motor 

repairs. Areas 3 and 6 were completely refurbished following a fire that occurred after the 

completion of MED operations. 

West Building: Located adjacent to the Conrail property; l0,000 ft2consisting of a two-story, high 

bay (no second floor). It was previously used as an electric motor shop and is called the Power or 

Boiler House. During FUSRAP characterization, it was not being used or occupied.

Since the termination of MED operations at Baker Brothers in1944, the site has been divided into two 

separate properties that support ongoing commercial enterprises. The property is still privately owned 

and is currently occupied by a motor brokerage and an electrical services company (DOE, 2012).

Plant/Process Description and Chronology

Under jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers in the early 1940s, the MED was established as the 

lead agency in the development of nuclear energy for defense-related projects. Raw materials 

containing uranium ores were procured, stored, and processed into various uranium oxides, salts and 

metals. Fabricators were contracted to form the metal first into rods by rolling or extruding (Survey, 

1992) and then they were machined into slugs for the production reactors.

The MED needed to temporarily expand its machining capacity until permanent facilities were 

installed at Hanford Engineer Works (Authority Review, 1992). Approximately forty shops were 

contacted to meet a September 1, 1943 deadline for the fabrication of 100 tons of uranium slugs. Of

these forty shops, Baker Brothers was found to be capable of handling the work to satisfy the

developmental, production, and security requirements. Purchase Order XPG-582 1⁄2 was placed with 

Baker Brothers on May 29, 1943, for a portion of the total machining required, and the remaining 

portion was placed with Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company (HHM) in Hamilton, Ohio. Baker 

Brothers started work on this order in June 8, 1943, and it was expected to take 6 to 8 weeks to 

complete it (Site Visit, Sep1943).

The MED delivered the uranium metal rods under guard to the railroad spur between the North and 

South Buildings at Baker Brothers. From there the rods were carted into a large roll-up door, through 

a corridor in the north building to the courtyard for storage until the machinists were ready to process 

them in Area 7. Finished slugs left Baker Brothers on the same railroad spur, and were to be taken to 

ALCOA in New Kensington, PA for canning.

The MED slug production was moving toward completion when, in early September 1943, the MED 

requested machining of an additional thirty tons of rod (which until this time had been held in 

reserve). The MED included this work in that being performed on Purchase Orders XPG-174 1⁄2 and 

XPG-582 1⁄2 at HHM and Baker Brothers, respectively.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

19 of 61

Also in September 1943, the MED requested that Baker Brothers begin refacing and milling grooves 

into the slugs in order to facilitate their acceptance tests. This groove-milling task (Purchase Order

XPG-1795 1⁄2) was expanded to include 15-tons of rejected slugs; it was completed in April 1944.

Purchase Order XPG-582 1⁄2 work ended in October 1943, after machining 2,107 rods into 41,133 

slugs and reclaiming 4,267 other slugs. However, prior to completion, another purchase order (RPG800 1⁄2) was placed with Baker Brothers for approximately 500 hours of machining work in support of 

the slug-canning development program for Hanford, and included the reclamation of used 

experimental slugs for the Grasselli Research Laboratory. Baker Brothers was selected because of its 

heavier machines and its inherent ability to maintain closer tolerances. Also at the end of 1943, 

defects in extruded rod had become prevalent at Revere Copper and Brass Inc. and machining tests 

were to be performed at Baker Brothers to determine the extent of the imperfections. At the start of 

1944, with the machining of slugs well under way at Hanford (DuPont, 1945, pdf p. 97), MED’s 

interest in the machining program was primarily the fulfillment of various requests for experimental 

slugs.

Baker Brothers’ machining services were reactivated in May 1944 when Project 1553 (Purchase Order 

RPG 4014 1⁄2) was opened for a special order from the Explosives Department for the fabrication of 

48,000 unbonded slugs for Hanford. The need for these slugs was so critical that work was performed 

on a 24-hour daily basis in order to expedite delivery.

The original scope of work for this special order was machining slugs to a finished diameter and 

length. Soon after the work started, Baker Brothers suggested that production could be increased if 

rough-turned slugs were ground to a finished diameter, as this was the best-known high-production 

method for close tolerance work. However, Baker Brothers could not obtain a grinder in time to meet 

the accelerated delivery requirements for the slugs, so MED placed Purchase Order RPG-4291 1⁄2 with 

the Wm. E. Pratt Manufacturing Co. of Joliet, Illinois, for the centerless grinding of rough-turned 

slugs. The scope of the Baker Brothers order was then reduced to include only the work preparatory 

to the grinding operation. Because of this reduction in work scope, Baker Brothers was able to 

increase its production greatly by using equipment capable of the wider range of tolerances acceptable 

for rough turning. This increased output was accomplished at increased cost due to the use of 

additional personnel on overtime shifts, greater consumption of Hydromite (coolant), and various 

other factors.

According to a Metallurgical Laboratory Health Division correspondence, which was issued following 

a visit to Baker Brothers on June 21, 1943 (Nickson, 1943), heavy fumes were produced by the four 

lathes used in machining the rods. Figure 5-2 provides an example of one of the lathes.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

20 of 61

Source: DOE, 1992, pdf p. 24

Figure 5-2: Lathe Used for Machining Uranium Rods at Baker Brothers

An electrostatic precipitator was installed after February 4, 1944, and was effective at controlling the 

fumes as indicated by air sample data described in Section 5.2.1 below.

Machining operations were conducted in the Grinding Room in the North Building. For security 

purposes, containers of scrap metal and the turnings were stored in the Grinding Room and other areas 

of the plant for periods of several days to several weeks before shipment. The total amount of 

uranium machined by Baker Brothers was somewhere between 90 and 300 tons (approximately 1 to 4 

train carloads), and there were always DuPont, MED or University of Chicago Metallurgical 

Laboratory personnel present at the site for these operations (DOE, 1995, pdf p. 23). MED work was 

completed at Baker Brothers on August 15, 1944, and the final shipment of uranium turnings from the 

site was scheduled for September 8, 1944 (Morse, 1944), but NIOSH has not found confirmation of 

this shipment. The Baker Brothers facility assets were eventually liquidated and the machinery and 

equipment were sold at auction. There is no evidence that a radiological survey was performed at the 

completion of operations in 1944 (Residual Evaluation, unspecified, pdf p. 33). 
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

21 of 61

The DOE conducted radiological surveys in 1981 that detected uranium residues exceeding current 

federal guidelines (Aerospace, unspecified). From this, the DOE determined that a detailed 

characterization of the Baker Brothers site was necessary. This characterization was started in 1989 

and identified the courtyard north of Area 8 as the most contaminated area (Survey, 1992). In 1991, 

prior to the completion of characterization by the DOE, the property owner excavated the courtyard 

and replaced some of the contaminated material with clean fill. The excavated contaminated soils 

were taken to a private residence in Ottawa Lake, Michigan, for use as fill. In 1992, DOE designated 

the Baker Brothers site and the Michigan property eligible for remediation under FUSRAP. The 

Michigan property was remediated in the fall of 1994 (Site Characterization, 1995), and in 1995, DOE 

completed their characterization of the Baker Brothers Site (Site Characterization, 1995). 

The results of this detailed characterization were used by DOE to engineer and perform a remediation 

of the Baker Brothers site in 1995. In 2001, DOE certified the site’s compliance with cleanup 

standards and released it for unrestricted use.

5.2 Radiological Exposure Sources from Baker Brothers Operations

MED-related activities conducted at Baker Brothers between June 8, 1943 and September 8, 1944, 

were limited to the use of natural uranium metal. These MED activities were the source of radioactive 

materials brought to the site, which caused radiological exposures during the entire NIOSH-evaluated 

period. 

The following subsections provide an overview of the internal and external exposure sources for the 

Baker Brothers class under evaluation.

5.2.1 Internal Radiological Exposure Sources from Baker Brothers Operations

The primary potential source of internally deposited radioactivity resulting from Baker Brothers 

operations was inhalation and ingestion of natural uranium. Uranium was present at Baker Brothers 

as a solid metal, and U-238 was the principal radionuclide of concern (Survey, 1992). 

Natural uranium refers to uranium consisting of approximately 99.3% U-238, 0.7% U-235, and a very 

small residual amount of U-234, by weight. In terms of radioactivity, natural uranium contains 

approximately equal percentages of U-238 (48.6%) and U-234 (49.2%). These radionuclides emit 

alpha particles with primary emission energies of 4.20 MeV and 4.15 MeV (U-238), and 4.77 MeV 

and 4.72 MeV (U-234) (Rad Handbook, 1970). The radioactivity contribution from U-235 is much 

smaller (approximately 2.2%) relative to U-238 or U-234. U-235 emits alpha particles with energies 

of 4.40 MeV and 4.37 MeV.

NIOSH was able to find seven uranium air sample results taken on two occasions during MED 

Operations, as presented in Table 5-1 (Monitoring, 1944; Nickson, 1943).
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

22 of 61

Table 5-1: Uranium Air Sample Data during MED Operations

Sample Location Sample Date Sample Result (μg/m3)

Near Lathe #2 June 21, 1943 50

Near Lathe #3 June 21, 1943 240

Near Lathe #4 June 21, 1943 84

General Area February 4, 1944 100

May 5, 1944 21

Edge of Operating Lathe February 4, 1944 300

May 5, 1944 61

5.2.2 External Radiological Exposure Sources from Baker Brothers Operations

Based on information and documentation available to NIOSH, the potential for external radiation 

doses from uranium and uranium decay products existed at Baker Brothers. The uranium was solely 

derived from naturally-occurring metals, and thus exhibited a natural isotopic abundance. The 

following subsections provide an overview of the external exposure sources. 

Natural uranium emits both beta particles (electrons) and photons (gamma and X-rays), as shown in 

Table 5-2. The two primordial components of natural uranium are U-238 and U-235, but some of 

their decay products grow into equilibrium fast enough to contribute to worker exposures during metal 

processing. The radioactive material that the MED brought to Baker Brothers during their operations 

there in 1943 and 1944 continued to be the source of radiological exposures at the site until it was 

remediated in 1996.

5.2.2.1 Photon

Uranium metal was handled by Baker Brothers employees between June 8, 1943 and September 8, 

1944 during MED operations. External exposures to photon radiation would have resulted from the 

immediate daughter radionuclides in the uranium decay chain. The uranium progeny that result in the 

most significant photon exposures include Th-234 and Pa-234m (Rad Handbook, 1970). Note that 

these isotopes have relatively short half-lives and can be assumed to be in equilibrium with the parent 

U-238. Because of their short half-lives, the exposure potential from these isotopes would follow the 

parent and will not be considered separately in this document.

U-235 emits alpha particles and gamma photons in about 70% of its transitions, but occurs at 0.720% 

abundance in natural uranium. 
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

23 of 61

The majority of the photons from natural uranium metals are in the 30-250 keV energy range 

(Battelle-TBD-6000). However, solid uranium objects provide considerable shielding of the 

lower-energy photons and “harden” the spectrum, causing the majority of photons emitted from a 

solid uranium object (e.g., a slug or rod) to have energies greater than 250 keV. While it is recognized 

that solid uranium sources will have a hardened photon spectrum, exposure to a thin layer of uranium 

on a surface will result in a larger fraction of exposure to lower-energy photons (Battelle-TBD-6000).

Table 5-2 lists the beta and photon emissions of the radionuclides of major external exposure concern. 

Exposure to these emissions was possible for the period under evaluation during metal-handling and 

from submersion in contaminated air. Therefore, for the purposes of this evaluation, deep-dose 

estimates from the uranium sources at Baker Brothers are evenly distributed between photons with 

E=30-250 keV and photons with E= >250 keV.

Table 5-2: Beta and Photon Emissions of Primary Interest

(This table spans two pages)

Radionuclide

Beta Energy MeV, max.

(probability per decay)

Photon Energy MeV 

(probability per decay)

Uranium-238 None 0.013 (8.8%)

Thorium-234 0.10 (19%) 0.063 (3.5%)

0.193 (79%) 0.093 (4%)

Protactinium-234m 2.28 (99%) 0.766 (0.2%)

1.00 (0.6%)

Uranium-235 None

0.144 (11%)

0.163 (5%)

0.186 (54%)

0.205 (5%)

Thorium-231

0.205 (15%)

0.287 (49%) 0.026 (15%)

0.304 (35%) 0.084 (6.5%)

Uranium-234 None 0.053 (0.1%)

Thorium-230 None

0.0667 (0.37%)

0.142 (0.07%) 

0.144 (0.045%)

Radium-226 None 0.186 (3.28%)

Radon-222 None 0.510 (0.078%)

Polonium-218 0.33 (0.02%) 0.837 (0.0011%)

Lead-214

0.67 (48%) 0.2419 (7.5%)

0.73 (42.5%) 0.295 (19.2%)

1.03 (6.3 %) 0.352 (37.1%)

Astatine-218 None 0.786 (1.1%)

0.053 (6.6%)

Bismuth-214

1.42 (8.3%) 0.609 (46.1%)

1.505 (17.6%) 1.12 (15.0%)

1.54 (17.9%) 1.765 (15.9%)

3.27 (17.7%) 2.204 (5.0%)

Polonium-214 None 0.7997 (0.010%)

Thalium-210

1.32 (25%) 0.2918 (79.1%)

1.87 (56%) 0.7997 (99%)

2.34 (29%) 0.860 (6.9%)

1.110 (6.9%)

1.21 (17%)
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

24 of 61

Table 5-2: Beta and Photon Emissions of Primary Interest

(This table spans two pages)

Radionuclide

Beta Energy MeV, max.

(probability per decay)

Photon Energy MeV 

(probability per decay)

1.310 (21%)

1.410 (4.9%)

2.010 (6.9%)

Lead-210 0.016 (80%) 0.0465 (4%)

0.063 (20%)

Bismuth-210 1.161 (~100%) None

Polonium-210 None 0.802 (0.0011%)

Thalium-206 1.571 (100%) 0.803 (0.0055%)

Source: Rad Handbook, 1998; a more complete list of uranium progeny can be found in this

referenced document.

5.2.2.2 Beta

Beta particle radiation was the dominant source of external radiation exposure associated with 

uranium-machining activities at Baker Brothers, primarily from U-238 decay products. For example, 

nearly the entire beta radiation field from depleted uranium comes from the daughter radionuclide 

Pa-234m, and to a lesser extent from Th-234. The surface beta dose-rate from a uranium slab is 

approximately 233 mrad per hour.

Beta doses to the skin, extremities, and (sometimes) the lens of the eye can be limiting in facilities that 

process uranium. Potentially significant skin exposure from uranium occurs primarily from the 

Pa-234m betas at tissue depths of 4 mg/cm2and greater. At 2.29-MeV (Emax), beta particles from 

Pa-234m are the most energetic contributors to the beta exposure.

Table 5-2 shows the principal beta emitters and their energies for the uranium present at Baker 

Brothers. As indicated, there are a significant number of high-energy betas representing a 

shallow-dose concern for workers. Workers who handled the uranium metal at Baker would have 

received these shallow doses. For example, slug quality-assurance inspections involved bare-hand 

contact with the uranium for six hours per day, as reported in an August 23, 1943 (Site Visit, 

Aug1943). The primary exposure areas would have been the hands and forearms, the neck and face, 

and other areas of the body that were not covered.

According to May 1944 correspondence, the most outstanding hazard at Baker Brothers was too much 

metal handling by the operators and inspectors, as well as hand-filing and carrying the metal barehanded (Monitoring, 1944).

5.2.2.3 Neutron

Neutron exposures were not evaluated for Baker Brothers because they are negligible for naturaluranium metal-handling facilities (Battelle-TBD-6000).
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

25 of 61

5.2.3 Incidents

NIOSH did not identify any documented accidents at Baker Brothers that resulted in exceptionally 

high personnel exposure levels (such as a criticality event). However, the pyrophoric nature of the 

uranium metal, especially the turnings and fines, led to recurring fires in the early days of the process.

The pyrophoric character of the metal when reduced to grindings and its tendency to react with water 

were the major difficulties encountered during MED work at Baker Brothers. So hazardous were the 

conditions that it was necessary to incinerate all grindings in order to accumulate and safely ship the 

scrap generated from the operation. The uranium chips would spontaneously ignite in the lathe pans 

and scrap metal containers, so the cooling/lubrication system on each of the four lathes had to be 

upgraded to allow greater volumes of coolant/lubricant to flow over the turning operation (DuPont, 

1945).

A Metallurgical Laboratory letter dated June 29, 1943 describes a fire that consumed 100 pounds of 

uranium scrap (Nickson, 1943). The Baker Brothers plant manager said the workers were 

apprehensive about the possible toxic effects. A short talk was given to the workers about what might 

occur, and what is extremely unlikely to occur in hopes the men would take “a more rational attitude 

toward the material” (Nickson, 1943).

A letter dated August 27, 1943 states “there were a number of accidental fires, of which at least three 

were spontaneous. Fires of quantities ranging from several pounds to several hundred pounds have 

been experienced” (Daniels, 1943).

6.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Class Evaluated 

by NIOSH

The following subsections provide an overview of the state of the available internal and external 

monitoring data for the Baker Brothers class under evaluation.

6.1 Available Baker Brothers Internal Monitoring Data

NIOSH has obtained very limited air monitoring results for monitoring performed in the AWE 

operations period; one set from 1943 and two sets from 1944. Those data are provided in copies of 

MED documents (Nickson, 1943; Monitoring, 1944) captured at the Atlanta Federal Records Center 

(see Table 5-1). The air monitoring samples were collected near the end of the Baker Brothers 

operation. The final set of samples was collected after lathe ventilation was added after February 4, 

1944 (Monitoring, 1944).

NIOSH has obtained results of several contamination surveys conducted during the residual radiation 

period at the Baker Brothers site and plans to use those data to bound doses from uranium exposures 

potentially received during that period. These data include:
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

26 of 61

Walk-through contamination survey of the Baker Brothers buildings performed by Argonne 

National Laboratory in 1981. Only two areas were identified as exceeding DOE limits for public 

release in use at that time (Aerospace, unknown date).

The document, Radiological Survey of the Former Baker Brothers, Inc. Site, 2551-2555 Harleau 

Place, Toledo, Ohio, performed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and dated March 

1992. This report details ORNL’s outdoor and indoor radiological surveys conducted in 1989 

(Survey, 1992). Contamination survey results from the 1989 survey are provided in Table 6-1, 

and show four general outdoor areas and one indoor area with contamination that exceeds 

guideline values from the U.S. DOE Order 5400.5 (April 1990). Gamma radiation surveys 

performed indoors were below guideline values. NIOSH has identified air-monitoring data in this 

same document. The air sampling was performed during the 1989 survey (Survey, 1992, pdf p. 

24). The results, from breathing zone sampling, were reported as less than the minimum 

detectable activity (MDA) of U-238. The available documentation states the MDA was 3% of the 

guideline value of 1E-13 μCi/ml.

Table 6-1: Results from 1989 ORNL Surveys at Baker Brothers

(This table spans two pages)

Location

Alpha

(dpm/100cm2)

Beta

(mrad/hr)

Beta

(dpm/100cm2)

Total Removable Total Removable

South Building

Second Floor Indoors

18 0 0.01

27 3 0.03

36 0.02

9 6 0.02

36 0.03 16

9 0.03

27 0.03

9 0.02 32

9 0.02

36 0.02

1900 3 2.25 16

5400 6 0.03

15 7

0.02 98

3 0.03 49

3 0.03

3 0.03

0.03 98

1600 5 2900

East Building 45 0.04

North Building 18 0.02

South Building

First Floor Indoors

36 0.02

9 0.01

0.02 98

27 0.02

36 0.02 16

18 9 0.02

18 0.03 33
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

27 of 61

Table 6-1: Results from 1989 ORNL Surveys at Baker Brothers

(This table spans two pages)

Location

Alpha

(dpm/100cm2)

Beta

(mrad/hr)

Beta

(dpm/100cm2)

Total Removable Total Removable

36 0.03

27 0.03 82

18 3 0.04

9 0.02 16

36 0.03 213

9 0.03 197

18 0.04 16

18 0.03

27 3 0.02 16

0.02 128

6 0.02 48

9 0.03

9 0.02

North Building

First Floor Indoors

18 0.02

9 0.02 16

72 0.02 112

18 0.02 112

54 0.04

27 3 0.02

East Building First Floor Indoors

North Building First Floor Indoors

9 3 0.03 82

9 0.02

18 0.03

27 3 0.03 16

0.02 112

0.02 64

0.03 94

3 0.02

36 0.02 16

South Building Roof

171 0.04 64

9 0.03

36 0.03

36 0.03

261 0.05

135 0.03

36 0.02 48

27 0.02 33

9 0.02

Source: Survey, 1992

Blank cells mean no data.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

28 of 61

The document, Characterization Results for the Former Baker Brothers Site, Toledo, Ohio, 

Bechtel, August 2, 1995, reports on a radiological and non-radiological characterization performed 

by Bechtel for DOE in 1995; it contains results of outdoor and indoor radiological sampling (Site 

Characterization, 1995). The document was captured at the Kansas Federal Records Center. The 

following types of surveys were performed: beta-gamma floor monitoring of all accessible floors, 

beta-gamma and alpha hand surveys of floors, walls, ceiling areas, and roofs). This 1995 

characterization effort was intended to supplement the 1989 data obtained by ORNL (Survey, 

1992), and it did not identify any additional contaminated outdoor areas except for a section of 

roof on the South Building. This 1995 characterization supplement did identify additional 

contaminated indoor areas and those survey results only are provided in Table 6-2 as a comparison 

(< or >) to DOE Order 5400.5 guideline values.

Table 6-2: Results from 1995 Bechtel Surveys at Baker Brothers

Location Total

(dpm/100cm2)

Removable

(dpm/100cm2)

North Building Indoors

Several areas 

identified where 

survey results exceed 

an average value of 

5,000 and/or a 

maximum of 15,000

Several areas 

identified where 

survey results exceed 

1,000 South Building Indoors

Source: Site Characterization, 1995

Blank cells mean no data.

The document, Baker Brothers – Transmittal of Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis with 

Responsiveness Summary for the Baker Brothers Site, Toledo, Ohio, SAIC, June 23, 1995, is an 

SAIC transmittal and technical report. It contains a presentation of the data presented in the 

ORNL report discussed above (Survey, 1992) along with additional core sample data obtained by 

ORNL in 1991 (DOE, 1995). The document was captured at the Kansas Federal Records Center.

The document, Post-Remedial Action Report for the Former Baker Brothers Site, is a Bechtel 

National issued in February, 1997, providing details and data obtained during the DOE 

remediation performed in 1995 (DOE, 1997). The document contains summarized data of surveys 

performed during the clean-up along with post-remedial exposure-rate measurements and 

discussions of controls used during the clean-up and the disposition of waste materials.

NIOSH has identified general area air monitoring data collected within the remediation areas 

(DOE, 1997). The measured U-238 concentrations ranged from 0.00071 pCi/l to 0.00077 pCi/l, 

which were less than one-half of the derived concentration guide for U-238 (0.002 pCi/l) given in 

DOE Order 5400.5. Using the maximum reported value, ORAUT derived an air concentration of 

0.77 pCi/m3(0.00077 pCi/l x 1E+3 l/m3).
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

29 of 61

The document, Verification of the Former Baker Brothers, Inc. Site, Toledo, Ohio, issued by Oak 

Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) in December 1996 reports on radiological 

assessments performed to verify decontamination of the Baker Brothers site (Survey, 1996). The 

document was captured at the DOE LM Grand Junction Office and it identified two areas inside 

the South building and one area outside the North building with contamination that exceeded DOE 

Order 5400.5 guideline values. The highest levels observed were 68,000 dpm/100 cm2total and 

174 dpm/100 cm2removable contamination. After these three areas were decontaminated, ORISE 

reported that the site satisfied release guidelines. Beta scans were performed to show compliance 

with DOE alpha release criteria using the following ORISE assumption: "Natural uranium emits 

both alpha and beta radiation in a 1:1 ratio.” (Survey, 1996, pdf p. 23).

NIOSH has also obtained worker access registers with contamination survey results, and uranium 

bioassay results for the DOE remediation performed in 1995 (FUSRAP, 1995a; FUSRAP, 1995b; 

FUSRAP, 1995c; FUSRAP, 1995d). These documents are Bechtel FUSRAP documents. They were 

obtained at the Kansas Federal Records Center. The uranium bioassay results are shown in Table 6.3. 

NIOSH intends to use these data to bound doses during the 1995 remediation effort. NIOSH has also 

identified Baker Brothers bioassay data (FUSRAP, 1995a; FUSRAP, 1995b; FUSRAP, 1995d; 

FUSRAP, 1995e) for all 35 workers identified in the access control logs (FUSRAP, 1995c); however,

both baseline and follow-up sample results are available for only 24 of the workers. Baseline data are

available for three workers with final bioassay results available for the remaining eight. The bioassay 

results were reported in units of μg/l and each batch of results (a batch = 1 to 4 results) was 

accompanied by a QA result. The bioassay data are given in Table 6-5 with worker information 

sanitized.

Table 6-3: Uranium Bioassay Results for Baker Brothers

(This table spans three pages)

Worker Collection 

Start Date Results (μg/l)

Reported 

Error ± 

(μg/l)

1 7/23/1995 <0.030 0.000

1 10/3/1995 <0.030 0.000

2 9/16/1995 <0.030 0.000

2 7/20/1995 0.020 0.010

3 7/23/1995 <0.030 0.000

3 9/12/1995 0.060 0.010

4 7/10/1995 0.010 0.002

4 10/3/1995 0.040 0.010

5 7/11/1995 <0.030 0.000

5 9/20/1995 0.020 0.002

6 7/11/1995 <0.030 0.000

6 9/20/1995 0.050 0.010

7 7/10/1995 <0.030 0.000

7 10/4/1995 0.004 0.001

8 10/5/1995 0.110 0.010
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

30 of 61

Table 6-3: Uranium Bioassay Results for Baker Brothers

(This table spans three pages)

Worker Collection 

Start Date Results (μg/l)

Reported 

Error ± 

(μg/l)

9 10/4/1995 <0.030 0.000

9 7/16/1995 0.060 0.010

10 7/13/1995 <0.030 0.000

11 9/11/1995 <0.030 0.000

11 7/20/1995 0.030 0.004

12 7/20/1995 <0.030 0.000

12 9/11/1995 <0.030 0.000

13 7/18/1995 <0.030 0.000

13 9/17/1995 <0.030 0.000

14 10/2/1995 0.060 0.010

15 10/4/1995 <0.030 0.000

15 7/17/1995 0.050 0.010

16 7/10/1995 <0.030 0.000

16 10/4/1995 <0.030 0.000

17 7/11/1995 <0.030 0.000

17 10/4/1995 0.003 0.001

18 10/8/1995 <0.030 0.000

19 10/1/1995 <0.030 0.000

19 7/19/1995 0.020 0.010

20 9/7/1995 0.050 0.010

20 7/12/1995 0.110 0.010

21 8/21/1995 0.030 0.030

22 7/17/1995 0.010 0.010

22 9/11/1995 0.020 0.002

23 7/19/1995 0.050 0.010

23 10/4/1995 0.090 0.010

24 9/17/1995 <0.030 0.000

24 7/22/1995 0.030 0.010

25 9/17/1995 <0.030 0.000

26 10/4/1995 <0.030 0.000

27 7/10/1995 <0.030 0.000

27 9/27/1995 0.050 0.010

28 7/10/1995 0.080 0.010

29 7/11/1995 <0.030 0.000

29 10/4/1995 0.060 0.010

30 10/4/1995 <0.030 0.000

31 7/17/1995 <0.030 0.000
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

31 of 61

Table 6-3: Uranium Bioassay Results for Baker Brothers

(This table spans three pages)

Worker Collection 

Start Date Results (μg/l)

Reported 

Error ± 

(μg/l)

31 9/17/1995 <0.030 0.000

32 7/17/1995 <0.030 0.000

32 10/5/1995 0.040 0.010

33 10/4/1995 <0.030 0.000

33 7/10/1995 0.110 0.010

34 10/5/1995 0.050 0.010

35 9/7/1995 0.010 0.010

 Sources: FUSRAP, 1995a; FUSRAP, 1995b; FUSRAP, 1995c; 

 FUSRAP, 1995d

6.2 Available Baker Brothers External Monitoring Data

NIOSH has not identified Baker Brothers or DOE documentation that would show that workers were 

monitored for external radiation, either during the AWE or the residual radiation periods. However, 

data contained in contamination and radiation survey documents can be used to bound external doses 

during the residual radiation period.

7.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Class Evaluated by 

NIOSH

The feasibility determinations for the class of employees under evaluation in this report are governed 

by both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1). Under that Act and rule, NIOSH must establish 

whether or not it has access to sufficient information either to estimate the maximum radiation dose 

for every type of cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed that could have been incurred 

under plausible circumstances by any member of the class, or to estimate the radiation doses to 

members of the class more precisely than a maximum dose estimate. If NIOSH has access to 

sufficient information for either case, NIOSH would then determine that it would be feasible to 

conduct dose reconstructions.

In determining feasibility, NIOSH begins by evaluating whether current or completed NIOSH dose 

reconstructions demonstrate the feasibility of estimating with sufficient accuracy the potential 

radiation exposures of the class. If the conclusion is one of infeasibility, NIOSH systematically 

evaluates the sufficiency of different types of monitoring data, process and source or source term data, 

which together or individually might assure that NIOSH can estimate either the maximum doses that 

members of the class might have incurred, or more precise quantities that reflect the variability of 

exposures experienced by groups or individual members of the class as summarized in Section 7.5. 

This approach is discussed in DCAS’s SEC Petition Evaluation Internal Procedures which are 
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

32 of 61

available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. The next four major subsections of this Evaluation 

Report examine:

The sufficiency and reliability of the available data. (Section 7.1)

The feasibility of reconstructing internal radiation doses. (Section 7.2)

The feasibility of reconstructing external radiation doses. (Section 7.3)

The bases for petition SEC-00204 as submitted by the petitioner. (Section 7.4)

7.1 Pedigree of Baker Brothers Data

This subsection answers questions that need to be asked before performing a feasibility evaluation. 

Data Pedigree addresses the background, history, and origin of the data. It requires looking at site 

methodologies that may have changed over time; primary versus secondary data sources and whether 

they match; and whether data are internally consistent. All these issues form the bedrock of the 

researcher’s confidence and later conclusions about the data’s quality, credibility, reliability, 

representativeness, and sufficiency for determining the feasibility of dose reconstruction. The 

feasibility evaluation presupposes that data pedigree issues have been settled.

7.1.1 Internal Monitoring Data Pedigree Review

In this evaluation, NIOSH has determined that it lacks sufficient data relating to worker internal doses 

from AEC-related work performed at Baker Brothers during the AWE operational period (June 1, 

1943 through December 31, 1944). Therefore, a complete internal data sufficiency and pedigree 

evaluation is not possible for the period from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944.

Data for the residual radiation period from January 1, 1945 through December 31, 1994 consist of 

contamination and radiation survey reports. These sources are copies of original reports and are 

therefore considered primary data sources. Data for the remediation period in 1995 and for the final 

year of residual radiation in 1996 consist of contamination and radiation survey reports. These 

sources are copies of original reports and are therefore considered primary data sources. NIOSH also 

captured results of uranium bioassay of remediation workers sampled from July through October 

1995. These sources are copies of original reports and are therefore considered primary data sources.

7.1.2 External Monitoring Data Pedigree Review

As discussed in Section 6.2, NIOSH has not located any documentation indicating that personnel were 

monitored for external exposure for either the AWE operational period under evaluation (June 1, 1943 

through December 31, 1944) or during the residual radiation and remediation periods (January 1, 1945

through December 31, 1996). Therefore, a data sufficiency and pedigree evaluation is not possible for 

this data type for this period.

NIOSH has source term data in the form of shipping transactions and accountability and contractual 

recording of uranium materials to be machined by Baker Brothers. The data sources are copies of 
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

33 of 61

original reports and contracts and are therefore considered primary data sources. The data reported by 

AEC representatives would have been collected in accordance with standard practices using state-ofthe-art methods of the day.

7.2 Evaluation of Bounding Internal Radiation Doses at Baker Brothers

The principal source of internal radiation doses for members of the class under evaluation during the 

AWE operations period was the potential inhalation and ingestion of airborne natural uranium by 

employees, both those nearby and those directly involved in machining of rods at Baker Brothers. 

Other employees were potentially exposed to the re-suspension of surface contamination during the 

course of their work with non-radioactive materials. 

The principal source of internal radiation doses for members of the class under evaluation during the 

residual radiation and remediation periods was the potential inhalation and ingestion of re-suspended 

uranium contamination. 

The following subsections address the ability to bound internal doses, methods for bounding doses, 

and the feasibility of internal dose reconstruction.

7.2.1 Evaluation of Bounding AWE Process-Related Internal Doses

The following subsections summarize the extent and limitations of information available for 

reconstructing the process-related internal doses of members of the class under evaluation.

7.2.1.1 Bioassay Results

NIOSH did not locate urinalysis or other bioassay monitoring data for the AWE operations period 

under evaluation; therefore, internal exposure must be determined based solely on process 

information, radiological source term information and area monitoring data.

7.2.1.2 Airborne Levels

NIOSH has found only seven air sampling results performed in June 1943 and February and May 

1944 (Monitoring, 1944), and shown in Table 5-1. While this limited amount of data shows a decline 

in uranium air concentration, NIOSH lacks sufficient information to determine if the results are 

representative of breathing air.

7.2.1.3 Alternative Data Sources for Bounding Internal Dose

Source term data are available through a variety of reports, requests, and memos although the 

quantities listed are uncertain as they were given in a wide range from 90 to 300 tons, which 

introduces uncertainty in a bounding model that incorporates source term. Finally, there is uncertainty 

about coolant and ventilation controls used during the machining operations.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

34 of 61

7.2.2 Evaluation of Bounding Residual Radiation and Remediation Period Internal Doses

7.2.2.1 Bioassay Results

NIOSH did not locate urinalysis or other bioassay monitoring data for the residual radiation periods, 

January 1, 1945 through December 31, 1994 and January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996. 

NIOSH has located urinalysis data obtained from workers during the remediation in 1995 and plan to 

use those urinalysis data to reconstruct doses for remediation workers. Individual results are shown in 

Table 6-5.

7.2.2.2 Airborne Levels

NIOSH has identified air monitoring data obtained during an ORNL survey of Baker Brothers 

buildings in 1989 (Survey, 1992, pdf p. 24). The breathing zone sampling results were reported as 

less than the minimum detectable activity (MDA) of U-238. The available documentation states the 

MDA was 3% of the guideline value of 1E-13 μCi/ml, from the U.S. DOE Order 5400.5 (April 1990).

NIOSH has identified general area air monitoring data collected within the remediation areas (DOE, 

1997). The measured U-238 concentrations ranged from 0.00071 pCi/l to 0.00077 pCi/l, which were 

less than one-half of the derived concentration guide for U-238 given in DOE Order 5400.5 as 0.002 

pCi/l. Using the maximum reported value, NIOSH derived an air concentration of 0.77 pCi/m3

(0.00077 pCi/l x 1E+3 l/m3).

7.2.2.3 Alternative Data Sources for Bounding Internal Dose

As presented in Section 6.1, NIOSH has obtained results of contamination surveys performed at Baker 

Brothers in 1981, 1989, 1995, and 1996. These results are useful in determining intakes of uranium 

when used with the methodology presented in Battelle-TBD-6000 and ORAUT-OTIB-0070.

7.2.3 Methods for Bounding Internal Dose at Baker Brothers

7.2.3.1 Methods for Bounding AWE Operational Period Internal Dose

NIOSH considered the use of Battelle-TDB-6000 in a possible approach to bound internal doses 

during the AWE operations period. Baker Brothers changed from just water to the use of an oil-water 

mixed coolant in July 1943 with a modified coolant flow rate but still experienced some fires. 

Records show that Baker Brothers experienced frequent fires from the cuttings and fines generated by

machining (DuPont, 1945). NIOSH notes that the development of Battelle-TDB-6000 data was based 

on facilities that used coolant to control fires, with and without ventilation. From the documentation 

available to NIOSH, Baker Brothers initially used water as a coolant to control fires and fumes, but 

water alone did not mitigate fires. NIOSH has obtained no documentation on what controls were 

provided, or exactly when, although a Hanford document suggests that fires had at least been 

somewhat controlled by August 1943 (Daniels, 1943). However, for 1943, NIOSH has limited

information on actual controls that were put in place at Baker Brothers, although it is likely that some 

controls were implemented. Baker Brothers machining operations included rough turning, grinding, 

and grooving.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

35 of 61

NIOSH reviewed research used as the foundation for radionuclide intake derivations related to

uranium machining in Battelle-TBD-6000 (Harris, 1958). This study, The Industrial Hygiene of 

Uranium Fabrication (HASL-39), was published by the AEC’s Health and Safety Laboratory in 1958 

and represents monitoring of operations conducted after Baker Brothers ceased to machine uranium in 

1944. While some of the assumptions presented in HASL-39 and in Battelle-TBD-6000 may have 

applied to Baker Brothers given the machining of natural uranium, there are sufficient uncertainties 

that NIOSH cannot use these sources to derive uranium air concentrations and intake rates. The data 

may not be representative of the airborne conditions present at Baker Brothers in 1943 and 1944. 

HASL-39 provided an instance where uranium air concentration for one grinding event without 

ventilation was measured to be 13,000 dpm/m3. That concentration potentially could be used to 

bound uranium intakes, but since it is much higher than the daily-weighted average air concentrations 

reported by HASL-39, a derived intake could be overly high. Temporal considerations from IG-004 

were also evaluated to determine the feasibility of using Battelle-TBD-6000. Without more 

information on controls and ventilation used by Baker Brothers, NIOSH cannot use the intake rates 

presented in Battelle-TBD-6000 for the Baker Brothers AWE operational period. NIOSH will 

consider the use of air concentrations provided in Battelle-TBD-6000 to determine the initial air 

concentration at Baker Brothers during the residual radiation period.

Prior to 1943, uranium machining had not been done on a production scale. Baker Brothers was 

developing methods for machining uranium, and those methods would be used in other plants in later 

years. Baker personnel were determining the proper machining speeds, proper coolants, optimal 

coolant application, and optimal coolant flow rate. The methods and controls were designed, 

developed, and changed concurrent with operations due to the urgent need for the product. 

References indicate some relatively large episodic fires at Baker Brothers. Due to the evolving 

methods used at Baker Brothers, fires were likely more frequent and severe, and the fugitive 

emissions greater, than from the machining at the plants measured in Battelle-TBD-6000; thus, the use 

of data on exposure to airborne radioactivity in Battelle-TBD-6000 may not necessarily bound 

operational intakes at Baker Brothers in 1943-1944.

Consequently, NIOSH finds that it is infeasible to bound internal doses received from uranium 

machining at Baker Brothers from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944.

7.2.3.2 Methods for Bounding Residual Radiation Period Internal Dose

First Residual Radiation Period

Internal dose estimates for the residual radiation period from January 1, 1945 through December 31, 

1994 can be based on the inhalation and ingestion intakes using methodology presented in BattelleTBD-6000 and ORAUT-OTIB-0070. In using this methodology, NIOSH must have the uranium air 

concentration at the start of the residual period or be able to estimate it. NIOSH cannot use any of the 

seven air monitoring results obtained during the operations period to estimate such an air 

concentration due to the uncertainties in the results. NIOSH compared the operations and conditions 

known and postulated for Baker Brothers versus air sampling data for facilities machining uranium in 

Battelle-TBD-6000, Table 7-5.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

36 of 61

NIOSH determined the best method for estimating airborne radioactivity at Baker Brothers at the 

beginning of the residual period was to use the settling and re-suspension method presented in 

Battelle-TBD-6000 and ORAUT-OTIB-0070. Although an accurate estimate of airborne radioactivity 

may not be possible during the AWE operations period due to uncertainty in controls and possible 

episodic high airborne radioactivity that was not quantified, an estimate of average residual surface 

contamination present at the start of the residual period can be bounded based on the geometric mean 

daily weighted average air concentration for machining presented in Battelle-TBD-6000: 5480 

dpm/m3. The estimate of average removable surface contamination was made by assuming 

continuous settling at a rate of 0.00075 m/s for 30 days, resulting in a floor contamination level of 

10,650,000 dpm/m2. With all uranium metal work completed by September, 1944, and the bulk of 

turnings having been returned to the MED, average residual surface contamination remaining on 

January 1, 1945 is likely bounded by this value. A re-suspension rate of 1 x 10-6/m was applied to the 

residual contamination value to provide an air concentration of 10.65 dpm/m3(4.8 pCi/m3) on January 

1, 1945.

From January 1, 1945 through the end of the first residual radiation period (December 31, 1994), the 

uranium source term was depleted by radioactive decay and somewhat removed through other uses of 

the facilities (see ORAUT-OTIB-0070, Section 3.4). It is plausible to assume that workers in the 

Baker Brothers buildings during the first residual radiation period were exposed to re-suspended 

uranium contamination but at a rate that accounts for the depletion of the source term. NIOSH has 

identified air monitoring data obtained during an ORNL survey of the Baker Brothers buildings in 

1989 (Survey, 1992, pdf p. 24). The results, from breathing zone sampling, were reported as less than 

the minimum detectable activity (MDA) of U-238. The available documentation states the MDA was 

3% of the guideline value of 1E-13 μCi/ml in DOE Order 5400.5 (April 1990) (Survey, 1992, pdf p. 

24). NIOSH proposes the use of the MDA value, or 3E-15 μCi/ml (0.003 pCi/m3) as the bounding air 

concentration for the start of year 1990.

Using the air concentrations for 1945 and 1990, ORAU calculated the depletion factor for each year 

from 1945 through 1994 using ORAUT-OTIB-0070, Section 4.1.4:

A1990 = A1945 * e -λt  (Equation 1)

Where:

t = Years since 1945

λ = Depletion factor, and λ = - ln(A1990/A1945) / t = 0.164/y

At = 4.8 pCi/m3* e-λt(Equation 2)

Substituting each year since 1945 for t in Equation 2, air concentrations were calculated for each year

beginning January 1. These derived concentrations are provided in Table 7-1. Note that in 1990, the 

air concentration is 0.003 pCi/m3, which is the air concentration used to derive λ. Ingestion dose 

during this same period is determined based on the methodology in OCAS-TIB-009. The amount of 

uranium ingested in 1945 is determined by multiplying the air concentration of 5480 dpm/m3times 

0.2 m3times 300 days, which results in a 1.5 E5 pCi ingestion intake for 1945. Ingestion intakes in 

subsequent years are based on the 1945 intake and the 0.164/y depletion factor similar to what was 

done for air concentrations in equation 2 above.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

37 of 61

Table 7-1: Derived Uranium Air Concentrations

Date pCi/m3date pCi/m3

1/1/1945 4.7987 1/1/1970 0.0795

1/1/1946 4.0729 1/1/1971 0.0675

1/1/1947 3.4568 1/1/1972 0.0573

1/1/1948 2.9339 1/1/1973 0.0486

1/1/1949 2.4902 1/1/1974 0.0413

1/1/1950 2.1135 1/1/1975 0.0350

1/1/1951 1.7938 1/1/1976 0.0297

1/1/1952 1.5225 1/1/1977 0.0252

1/1/1953 1.2922 1/1/1978 0.0214

1/1/1954 1.0967 1/1/1979 0.0182

1/1/1955 0.9309 1/1/1980 0.0154

1/1/1956 0.7901 1/1/1981 0.0131

1/1/1957 0.6706 1/1/1982 0.0111

1/1/1958 0.5691 1/1/1983 0.0094

1/1/1959 0.4830 1/1/1984 0.0080

1/1/1960 0.4100 1/1/1985 0.0068

1/1/1961 0.3480 1/1/1986 0.0058

1/1/1962 0.2953 1/1/1987 0.0049

1/1/1963 0.2507 1/1/1988 0.0042

1/1/1964 0.2127 1/1/1989 0.0035

1/1/1965 0.1806 1/1/1990 0.0030

1/1/1966 0.1533 1/1/1991 0.0025

1/1/1967 0.1301 1/1/1992 0.0022

1/1/1968 0.1104 1/1/1993 0.0018

1/1/1969 0.0937 1/1/1994 0.0016

1995 Remediation and 1996 Residual Radiation Period

NIOSH has identified records of workers assigned to perform remediation work at Baker Brothers 

from July through October 1995 (FUSRAP, 1995c). NIOSH has also identified Baker Brothers 

bioassay data (FUSRAP, 1995a; FUSRAP, 1995b; FUSRAP, 1995d; FUSRAP, 1995e) for all 35

workers identified in the access control logs; however, both baseline and follow-up sample results are 

available for only 24 of the workers. Of the eleven workers not having both baseline and follow-up 

samples, three have baseline data only, and eight have final bioassay results only. If these eleven 

workers become claimants, doses can be reconstructed using data from the maximally-exposed 

co-worker with complete bioassay results. The bioassay results were reported in units of μg/l and 

each batch of results (a batch was 1 to 4 results) was accompanied by a QA result. NIOSH proposes 

to use actual uranium bioassay data to assign doses to any of the 24 workers with complete bioassay 

results involved in 1995 remediation should they become claimants.

For other perimeter workers who may have been in proximity of the clean-up but not monitored by 

bioassay, NIOSH has identified general area air monitoring data collected within the remediation 
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

38 of 61

areas (DOE, 1997). The data, given only as maximum concentrations of U-238, ranged from 0.00071 

pCi/l to 0.00077 pCi/l, which are less than one-half of the derived concentration guide for U-238 

given in DOE Order 5400.5 as (0.002 pCi/l). Using the maximum reported value, NIOSH derived an 

air concentration of 0.77 pCi/m3(0.00077 pCi/l x 1E+3 l/m3).

In 1996, ORISE performed a verification radiological survey of the Baker Brothers facility to ensure 

that the property was remediated below DOE release criteria. During the verification, ORISE 

identified a small area of contamination that had not been cleaned. The highest alpha total 

contamination result obtained was 16,000 dpm/100cm2. The maximum surface contamination level of 

16,000 dpm/100cm2 was converted to an air concentration using a value of 1E-06 m

-1

for the

re-suspension factor (from ORAUT-OTIB-0070), which provides a projected airborne concentration 

of:

(16,000 dpm)(1E+4 cm2/m2)(1E-6 m-1re-suspension factor)/100 cm2= 1.6 dpm/m3

 or 0.72 pCi/m3

The derived value of 0.72 pCi/m3is nominally equal to the value of 0.77 pCi/m3using air monitoring 

data. Therefore, NIOSH proposes to use an air concentration of 0.77 pCi/m3to bound potential 

uranium intakes for perimeter workers in 1995 and for any worker on the Baker Brothers site in 1996

(post-remediation). The amount of uranium activity ingested on an annual basis in 1995 and 1996 is 

determined by multiplying the measured air concentration of 0.77 pCi/m

3

times 0.2 m3times 300 

days, which results in an annual ingestion intake of 46 pCi.

In summary, air concentrations derived by NIOSH for the years 1945, 1990, 1994, 1995, and 1996 are 

provided in Table 7-2. The air concentrations for 1995 and 1996 are significantly larger than in 1994; 

remediation activities would have been expected to stir up and re-suspend contamination, which is 

bounded by this assumption.

Table 7-2: Summarized air concentrations (pCi/m3)

Year Air Concentration 

1945 4.799

1990 0.003

1994 0.0016

1995 remediation workers Use bioassay data

1995 perimeter workers 0.77

1996 0.77
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

39 of 61

7.2.4 Internal Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion

NIOSH concludes that it is not feasible to reconstruct uranium internal radiation doses at Baker 

Brothers for the period from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944.

NIOSH concludes that there are methods available in Battelle-TBD-6000 and ORAUT-OTIB-0070, as 

well as post-AWE breathing zone air data and remediation period bioassay data, so that uranium 

internal radiation doses can be completely reconstructed for the Baker Brothers residual radiation and 

remediation periods from January 1, 1945 through December 31, 1996.

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct internal radiation doses for the 

period from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944, NIOSH intends to use any internal monitoring 

data that may become available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using existing 

NIOSH dose reconstruction processes or procedures). Dose reconstructions for individuals employed 

at site name during the period from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944, but who do not qualify 

for inclusion in the SEC, may be performed using these data as appropriate.

7.3 Evaluation of Bounding External Radiation Doses at Baker Brothers

7.3.1 Evaluation of Bounding AWE Process-Related External Doses

The principal source of external radiation doses for members of the evaluated class was exposure to 

gamma and beta radiation associated with handling and working in proximity to uranium while 

involved in the machining of materials during the AWE operations period. Some employees were 

also potentially externally exposed to radiation from re-suspended contamination from uranium metal 

surfaces and the floor during the course of their work with these radioactive materials; however, the 

doses assigned from handling metal are far greater and alone adequately bound their external dose. 

7.3.2 Evaluation of Bounding Residual Radiation Period External Doses

NIOSH has not identified any external personnel monitoring records applicable to the residual 

radioactive material remaining from uranium machining during the AWE operations period. NIOSH 

has identified radiation survey data from surveys performed in 1989 and 1995 (see Section 6.1) that

can be used to estimate the external dose rate for the remediation period. During the residual radiation 

period, employees were also potentially externally exposed to radiation from re-suspended 

contamination from surfaces and the floor.

7.3.3 Baker Brothers Occupational Medical X-Ray Examinations

NIOSH has found records to indicate that a medical monitoring program existed from the start of 

AWE operations (DuPont, 1945, pdf pp. 16-17, 242). Chest X-rays were scheduled in June 1943 for 

Robin Hood Hospital in Toledo (Nickson, 1943). Therefore, NIOSH finds that it is not applicable to 

reconstruct occupational medical dose for Baker Brothers workers because medical X-ray procedures 

were performed at an off-site, non-EEOICPA-covered facility. Therefore, based on the documented 

evidence, NIOSH concludes that medical X-ray dose is not a consideration for Baker Brothers

workers and will not be discussed further in this evaluation.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

40 of 61

7.3.4 Methods for Bounding External Dose at Baker Brothers

There is an established protocol for assessing external exposure when performing dose reconstructions 

(these protocol steps are discussed in the following subsections):

Photon Dose

Beta Dose

Neutron Dose

Medical X-ray Dose (as applicable per Section 7.3.3)

7.3.4.1 Methods for Bounding AWE Operational Period External Dose

Although no external personnel monitoring data are available to NIOSH for Baker Brothers, Table 6-1

of Battelle-TBD-6000 can be used to bound the operational period photon dose; this table provides 

dose rates at the surface, one foot, and one meter from various uranium shapes. Section 5 of this 

evaluation report discusses the Baker Brothers process and estimates the amount of uranium rods 

machined. During the machining operation, Baker Brothers workers were observed throughout the 

program carrying uranium rods without gloves. The operators also worked shifts to support the plant 

operations 24-hours per day and 7-days per week through much of the AWE operation effort. Baker 

Brothers doses were based on 48-hour workweeks and working near bare uranium metal. The 

calculated doses for 1943 (shown in Table 7-3) are pro-rated for the seven-month period June 1 

through December 31. Air submersion dose was also derived from Battelle-TBD-6000 but the 

summed dose is less than 1 mR for both years and is not included. Non-penetrating skin doses can be 

derived from radiation survey data found in the 1989 radiological survey of the Baker Brothers site 

(Survey, 1992).

Table 7-3: Baker Brothers External Dose from Bare Metal While Machining Uranium

Job Title Year Whole-Body Dose (mR/yr)

Operator 1943 1460

Operator 1944 2500

NOTE: For doses to claimants who do not match the job title of Operator, doses are to be 

reconstructed by selecting the correct job title from Table 6.4 of Battelle-TBD-6000 and prorating 

them accordingly.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

41 of 61

7.3.4.2 Methods for Bounding Residual Radiation and Remediation Period External Doses

In estimating external doses received during the residual radiation and remediation periods, NIOSH 

considered potential external doses received during radiation survey and radiological remediation

operations to be bounding. NIOSH tabulated and analyzed radiation survey data obtained in 1981, 

1989, 1995, and 1996, as presented in Attachment 1. The data were taken inside buildings and in soil

(Aerospace, unknown date; Survey, 1992, pdf pp. 48, 50, 55, 82, 90-93; DOE, 1997, pdf pp. 30-31; 

Survey, 1996, pdf pp. 21, 51). The data represented photon exposures from point and planar sources 

taken at varying distances. NIOSH converted each result to exposure rate at one meter (μR/hr). 

NIOSH derived the 95th percentile and maximum exposure rates to be 12 μR/hr and 15.36 μR/hr, 

respectively. NIOSH used the maximum value to derive an annual whole body exposure rate by 

assuming that a worker (e.g., a security guard) could have worked as much as 2400 hours per year 

resulting in bounding annual whole body and skin doses of 37 mrem each year from January 1, 1945

through December 31, 1996.

7.3.5 External Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Conclusion

NIOSH concludes it is feasible, using methods available in Battelle-TBD-6000, to reconstruct external 

radiation doses for the period from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944 at Baker Brothers.

NIOSH concludes that it is feasible, using available radiation survey data obtained at Baker Brothers, 

to bound external radiation doses potentially received during the residual radiation and remediation 

periods from January 1, 1945 through December 31, 1996. NIOSH finds that these external doses 

during the residual radiation and remediation periods can be completely reconstructed.

7.4 Evaluation of Petition Basis for SEC-00204

The following subsections evaluate the assertions made on behalf of petition SEC-00204 for Baker 

Brothers.

7.4.1 Lack of Monitoring During AWE Operations Period

SEC-00204: Radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed 

class that relate to this petition (for the AWE operations period) were not monitored, either through 

personal monitoring or through area monitoring.

Neither external personnel monitoring nor bioassay data have been found. Results of seven air 

samples taken on three different days have been found but are insufficient to bound internal doses. 

NIOSH’s review indicates that, in the absence of personnel monitoring data, the available process data 

are insufficient to bound potential internal radiation doses received during the AWE period under 

evaluation. NIOSH has proposed an SEC class in this evaluation report for this period, June 1, 1943 

through December 31, 1944.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

42 of 61

7.4.2 Lack of Monitoring During Residual Radiation and Remediation Periods 

SEC-00204: Radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed 

class that relate to this petition (for the residual radiation and remediation periods) were not 

monitored, either through personal monitoring or through area monitoring.

NIOSH has not identified external personnel monitoring or bioassay data for the residual radiation 

period. NIOSH has found bioassay results for the DOE remediation period in 1995. NIOSH has also 

identified FUSRAP survey data that were useful in bounding doses for the residual radiation period,

as described in Sections 7.2 and 7.3, and has presented methods for reconstructing with sufficient 

accuracy doses received during the residual radiation and remediation periods.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

43 of 61

7.5 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00204

This report evaluates the feasibility for completing dose reconstructions for employees at Baker 

Brothers from June 1943 through December 1996. NIOSH found that the available monitoring 

records, process descriptions and source term data available are not sufficient to complete dose 

reconstructions for the AWE contract period of the evaluated class of employees.

Table 7-4 summarizes the results of the feasibility findings at Baker Brothers for each exposure source 

during the time period June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944 (AWE operations) and from January 

1, 1945 through December 31, 1996 (residual radiation and remediation periods).

Table 7-4: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00204

June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944 (AWE operations); 

January 1, 1945 through December 31, 1996 (residual radiation and remediation periods)

Source of Exposure

Jun 1, 1943 through Dec 31, 1944

(AWE operations)

Jan 1, 1945 through Dec 31, 1996

(Residual and Remediation Periods)

Reconstruction 

Feasible

Reconstruction 

Not Feasible

Reconstruction 

Feasible

Reconstruction 

Not Feasible

Internal X X

 - Natural Uranium X X

External X X

 - Gamma X X

 - Beta X X

 - Neutron N/A N/A N/A N/A

 - Occupational Medical X-ray N/A N/A N/A N/A

As of October 24, 2012, four claims have been submitted to NIOSH for individuals who worked at 

Baker Brothers during the period under evaluation. Dose reconstructions have been completed for all 

four individuals, two of whom worked during the AWE contract period of the proposed SEC class 

from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944.

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct radiation doses for the 

proposed class, NIOSH intends to use any internal and external monitoring data that may become 

available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using existing NIOSH dose 

reconstruction processes or procedures). Therefore, dose reconstructions for individuals employed at 

Baker Brothers during the period from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944, but who do not 

qualify for inclusion in the SEC, may be performed using these data as appropriate.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

44 of 61

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00204

The health endangerment determination for the class of employees covered by this evaluation report is 

governed by both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3). Under these requirements, if it is not 

feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses for members of the class, NIOSH must 

also determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the 

health of members of the class. Section 83.13 requires NIOSH to assume that any duration of 

unprotected exposure may have endangered the health of members of a class when it has been 

established that the class may have been exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have 

involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring during nuclear criticality incidents. If 

the occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level exposure has not been established, then NIOSH is 

required to specify that health was endangered for those workers who were employed for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for the class or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. 

Based on the sum of information available from available resources, NIOSH’s evaluation determined 

that it is not feasible to estimate radiation dose with sufficient accuracy for members of the NIOSHevaluated class for the time period from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944. Therefore, the 

resulting NIOSH-proposed SEC class must include a minimum required employment period as a basis 

for specifying that health was endangered for this time period. NIOSH further determined that it is 

feasible to estimate radiation dose with sufficient accuracy for members of the NIOSH-evaluated class 

for the time period from January 1, 1945 through December 31, 1996. Therefore, a health 

endangerment determination is not required for this time period.

9.0 Class Conclusion for Petition SEC-00204

Based on its full research of the class under evaluation, NIOSH has defined a single class of 

employees for which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSHproposed class to be added to the SEC includes all Atomic Weapons Employees who worked at the 

Baker Brothers site in Toledo, Ohio, during the period from June 1, 1943 through December 31, 1944, 

for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this 

employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more 

other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort. NIOSH finds it does have 

sufficient data and methods to estimate internal and external radiation doses with sufficient accuracy 

for Baker Brothers workers for the period from January 1, 1945 through December 31, 1996.

NIOSH has carefully reviewed all material sent in by the petitioner, including the specific assertions 

stated in the petition, and has responded herein (see Section 7.4). NIOSH has also reviewed available 

technical resources and many other references, including the Site Research Database, for information 

relevant to SEC-00204. In addition, NIOSH reviewed its NOCTS dose reconstruction database to 

identify EEOICPA-related dose reconstructions that might provide information relevant to the petition 

evaluation.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

45 of 61

These actions are based on existing, approved NIOSH processes used in dose reconstruction for 

claims under EEOICPA. NIOSH’s guiding principle in conducting these dose reconstructions is to 

ensure that the assumptions used are fair, consistent, and well-grounded in the best available science. 

Simultaneously, uncertainties in the science and data must be handled to the advantage, rather than to 

the detriment, of the petitioners. When adequate personal dose monitoring information is not 

available, or is very limited, NIOSH may use the highest reasonably possible radiation dose, based on 

reliable science, documented experience, and relevant data to determine the feasibility of 

reconstructing the dose of an SEC petition class. NIOSH contends that it has complied with these 

standards of performance in determining the feasibility or infeasibility of reconstructing dose for the 

class under evaluation.
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

46 of 61

This page intentionally left blank
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

47 of 61

10.0 References

42 C.F.R. pt. 81, Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation Under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal 

Register/Vol. 67, No. 85/Thursday, p. 22,296; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 19391

42 C.F.R. pt. 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 

19392

42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special 

Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 

2000; Final Rule; May 28, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 22001

42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385 [EEOICPA], Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000, as amended

Aerospace, unknown date, Summary of Records Received from ANL and CORD; Aerospace; report 

date not specified; SRDB Ref ID: 68815

Authority Review, 1992, Authority Review and Determination for the Baker Brothers, Incorporated in 

Toledo, Ohio; Department of Energy and C. H. Schnoor & Company, Springdale; determination letter 

dated June 4, 1992; SRDB Ref ID: 46631

Authorization, 2012, Petition Authorization Form; received July 31, 2012; DSA Ref ID: 117401

Battelle-TBD-6000, Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals, Rev. 

01; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); Cincinnati, Ohio; Division of 

Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS); effective June 17, 2011; SRDB Ref ID: 101251

Daniels, 1943, Project 9536 Metal Turnings-Fire Hazard, correspondence; C. E. Daniels; August 27, 

1943; SRDB Ref ID: 116470

DCAS-PR-004, Internal Procedures for the Evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort Petitions, Rev. 1, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); Cincinnati, Ohio; Division of 

Compensation Analysis and Support (DCAS); April 15, 2011; SRDB Ref ID: 94768

DOE, 1995, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Baker Brothers Site; U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE); June, 1995; SRDB Ref ID: 46633

DOE, 1997, Post-Remedial Action Report for the Former Baker Brothers Site; U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) February, 1997; SRDB Ref ID: 68812

DOE, 2012, DOE Environmental Management Baker Brothers; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

website; website accessed July 7, 2012; SRDB Ref ID: 116438
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

48 of 61

DuPont, 1945, The Metal Fabrication Program for the Clinton Engineer Works and the Hanford 

Engineer Works Including the Dummy Slug Program and the Unbounded Slug Program-Project 

1553; E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc.; August 1945; SRDB Ref ID: 33190

Form B, 2012, Form B - 83.13; SEC petition received June 5, 2012; DSA Ref ID: 116870

FUSRAP, 1995a, Report of Analysis and Bioassay Sample Routing Log; Formerly Utilized Sites 

Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP); S&H Transmittal/Review; August 8, 1995; SRDB Ref ID: 

53180

FUSRAP, 1995b, Report of Analysis and Bioassay Sample Routing Log; Formerly Utilized Sites 

Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP); S&H Transmittal/Review; September 6, 1995; SRDB Ref ID: 

53181

FUSRAP, 1995c, Controlled Area Access Register, Volume II; Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action Program (FUSRAP); September 21, 1995; SRDB Ref ID: 53193

FUSRAP, 1995d, Report of Analysis and Bioassay Sample Routing Log; Formerly Utilized Sites 

Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP); S&H Transmittal/Review; October 3, 1995; SRDB Ref ID: 

53191

FUSRAP, 1995e, Report of Analysis and Bioassay Sample Routing Log; Formerly Utilized Sites 

Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP); S&H Transmittal/Review; October 25, 1995; SRDB Ref ID: 

53194

Harris, 1958, The Industrial Hygiene of Uranium Fabrication, W. B. Harris and I. Kingsley, United 

States Atomic Energy Commission, NYOO; HASL-39; June 6, 1958; SRDB Ref ID: 15785

Monitoring, 1944, Correspondence Containing Air Sampling Results from February 1944 and May 

1944, F. A. Fuqua; SRDB Ref ID: 9503

Morse, 1944, Work Completed at Baker Brothers and Scrap Shipping Plan, correspondence by R. D. 

Morse; August 1, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 68572

Nickson, 1943, Uranium Metal Machining, correspondence to C. E. Daniels from J. J. Nickson; June 

29, 1943; SRDB Ref ID: 11581

Nimmagadda, 1995, Derivation of Guidelines for Uranium Residual Radioactive Material in Soil at 

the Former Baker Brothers, Inc., Site, Toledo, Ohio, ANL/EAD/TM-42; M. Nimmagadda, S. Kamboj, 

and C. Yu; April 1995; SRDB Ref ID: 68737

OCAS-TIB-009, Estimation of Ingestion Intakes, Rev. 0, NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis 

and Support; April 13, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 22397
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

49 of 61

ORAUT-OTIB-0070, Dose Reconstruction During Residual Radioactivity Periods at Atomic 

Weapons Employer Facilities, Rev. 01; ORAU Team Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH; 

effective March 5, 2012; SRDB Ref ID: 108851

ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Guidance on Assigning Occupational X-ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-rays 

Administered Off Site, Rev. 00; ORAU Team Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH; effective 

January 3, 2011; SRDB Ref ID: 89563

Rad Handbook, 1970, Radiological Health Handbook, Revised Edition; compiled and edited by the 

Bureau of Radiological Health and the Training Institute Environmental Control Administration; 

revised January 1970; SRDB Ref ID: 75017

Rad Handbook, 1998, Handbook of Health Physics and Radiological Health, 3rd Edition; editors B.

Schleien, L. Slaback, B. Kent; 1998; SRDB Ref ID: 22737

Residual Evaluation, unspecified, Residual Radioactivity Evaluations for Individual Facilities, 

Appendix A-2; unspecified author; unspecified date; SRDB Ref ID: 106641

Site Characterization, 1995, Characterization Results for the Former Baker Brothers Site, Toledo, 

Ohio, Job No. 14501, FUSRAP Project; transmittal letter author is G. L. Palau; transmittal letter dated 

August 2, 1995; SRDB Ref ID: 46630

Site Visit, Aug1943, Visit to Baker Brothers on August 23, 1943; report by W. D. Norwood; report 

dated August 30, 1943; SRDB Ref ID: 101183

Site Visit, Sep1943, Visit to Baker Brothers, Inc., Toledo, Ohio in September 1943; report by John 

Ferry; report dated September 21, 1943; SRDB Ref ID: 9495

Support 2012a Supporting Document-Medical Records; received June 5, 2012; DSA Ref ID: 116871

Support, 2012b, Supporting Documents-Fact Sheet, Cover Letter, and Engineering Evaluation/Cost 

Analysis for the Baker Brothers Site; received June 21, 2012; DSA Ref ID: 117100

Survey, 1992, Radiological Survey of the Former Baker Brothers, Inc. Site, 2551-2555 Harleau 

Place, Toledo, Ohio (BTO001), ORNL/RASA-90/8; prepared by R. D. Foley and L. M. Floyd; 

published March 1992; SRDB Ref ID: 9445

Survey, 1996, Verification Survey of the Former Baker Brothers, Inc., Site Toledo, Ohio, Final 

Report, ORISE 96-1100; prepared by J. R. Morton and T. J. Vitkus; December 1996; SRDB Ref ID: 

68779

Woodward, 1944, Health Conditions in Various Industries Supplying Metal to du Pont Co. under 

Contract, correspondence to S. Warren; March 20, 1944; SRDB Ref ID: 11207
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

50 of 61

This page intentionally left blank
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

51 of 61

Attachment 1: Compilation of Radiation Survey Readings

Table A1-1: Compilation of Radiation Survey Readings Taken at Baker Brothers

(This table spans six pages)

Survey Reading

(μR/hr) Adjusted at 1 Meter Year SRDB Ref ID Pdf Page No.

12 0.001 1981 68815 4

15 0.002 1981 68815 4

32 1.003 1989/1990 9445 48

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 48

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 48

18 0.564 1989/1990 9445 48

15 0.470 1989/1990 9445 48

9 0.052 1989/1990 9445 48

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 48

130 4.076 1989/1990 9445 48

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 48

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 48

11 0.064 1989/1990 9445 48

11 0.064 1989/1990 9445 48

35 0.203 1989/1990 9445 48

470 14.737 1989/1990 9445 48

20 0.627 1989/1990 9445 48

39 1.223 1989/1990 9445 48

160 5.017 1989/1990 9445 48

10 0.058 1989/1990 9445 48

10 0.058 1989/1990 9445 48

10 0.058 1989/1990 9445 48

490 15.364 1989/1990 9445 48

490 15.364 1989/1990 9445 48

240 7.525 1989/1990 9445 48

240 7.525 1989/1990 9445 48

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 50

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 50

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 50

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 50

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 50

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 50

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 50

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 50

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 50

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 50
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

52 of 61

Table A1-1: Compilation of Radiation Survey Readings Taken at Baker Brothers

(This table spans six pages)

Survey Reading

(μR/hr) Adjusted at 1 Meter Year SRDB Ref ID Pdf Page No.

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 50

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 50

10 0.058 1989/1990 9445 50

9 0.052 1989/1990 9445 50

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 50

10 0.058 1989/1990 9445 50

7 0.041 1989/1990 9445 50

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 50

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 50

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 50

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 50

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 50

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 50

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 50

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

16 0.093 1989/1990 9445 55

29 0.168 1989/1990 9445 55

16 0.093 1989/1990 9445 55

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 55

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 55

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 55

14 0.081 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 55

29 0.168 1989/1990 9445 55

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 55

9 0.052 1989/1990 9445 55

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 55

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 55

9 0.052 1989/1990 9445 55

10 0.058 1989/1990 9445 55

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 55
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

53 of 61

Table A1-1: Compilation of Radiation Survey Readings Taken at Baker Brothers

(This table spans six pages)

Survey Reading

(μR/hr) Adjusted at 1 Meter Year SRDB Ref ID Pdf Page No.

32 0.186 1989/1990 9445 55

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 55

32 0.186 1989/1990 9445 55

10 0.058 1989/1990 9445 55

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

18 0.105 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 55

12 0.070 1989/1990 9445 55

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

15 0.087 1989/1990 9445 55

13 0.075 1989/1990 9445 55

14 0.081 1989/1990 9445 55

14 0.081 1989/1990 9445 55

9 0.052 1989/1990 9445 55

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 90

10 0.001 1989/1990 9445 90

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 90

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 90

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 90

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 90

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 90

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 90
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

54 of 61

Table A1-1: Compilation of Radiation Survey Readings Taken at Baker Brothers

(This table spans six pages)

Survey Reading

(μR/hr) Adjusted at 1 Meter Year SRDB Ref ID Pdf Page No.

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 90

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 90

2250 0.225 1989/1990 9445 90

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 90

7000 0.700 1989/1990 9445 90

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 90

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 90

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 90

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 90

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 90

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 90

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 90

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 90

5000 0.500 1989/1990 9445 90

40 0.004 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

10 0.001 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 91

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 91

40 0.004 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 91

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 91

40 0.004 1989/1990 9445 91

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 91

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

55 of 61

Table A1-1: Compilation of Radiation Survey Readings Taken at Baker Brothers

(This table spans six pages)

Survey Reading

(μR/hr) Adjusted at 1 Meter Year SRDB Ref ID Pdf Page No.

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 91

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

40 0.004 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 92

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 92

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 92

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 92

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 92

40 0.004 1989/1990 9445 93

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 93

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 93

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 93

50 0.005 1989/1990 9445 93

30 0.003 1989/1990 9445 93

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 93

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 93

20 0.002 1989/1990 9445 93

10.52 10.520 1995 68812 30

12.81 12.810 1995 68812 30

9.1 9.100 1995 68812 31
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

56 of 61

Table A1-1: Compilation of Radiation Survey Readings Taken at Baker Brothers

(This table spans six pages)

Survey Reading

(μR/hr) Adjusted at 1 Meter Year SRDB Ref ID Pdf Page No.

9.4 9.400 1995 68812 31

8 8.000 1996 68779 51

8 8.000 1996 68779 51

10 10.000 1996 68779 51

11 11.000 1996 68779 51

15 15.000 1996 68779 51

11 11.000 1996 68779 51

14 14.000 1996 68779 51

12 12.000 1996 68779 51

13 13.000 1996 68779 51

13 13.000 1996 68779 51

12 12.000 1996 68779 51

12 12.000 1996 68779 51
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

Page 57 of 61

Attachment 2: Data Capture Synopsis

Table A2-1: Data Capture Synopsis for Baker Brothers

Data Capture Information General Description of Documents Captured Date

Completed

Uploaded

To SRDB

Primary Site/Company Name: Baker Brothers; AWE 1943-

1944; Residual Radiation 1945-1994, 1996; DOE 1995 

(remediation) 

Alternate Site Names (Not successor companies): 

Rems, Inc.

Doug Beet Company

Romanoff Industries

Physical Size of the Site: Approximately 26.4 acres, with 

approximately 103,000 square feet under roof.

Site Population: 1943 and 1944 reports indicate that 

approximately 30 employees were involved in uranium 

machining. By 1944 most of these employees were women.

Baker Brothers assets were liquidated in 1944. There is no company or 

successor company to contact.

07/01/2012 0

State Contacted: Ohio Department of Health, Bureau of 

Radiation Protection; Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency

No relevant documents identified that were not already in the SRDB. 08/31/2012 0

DOE Germantown A list of covered facilities under EEOICPA, the designation of the 

Baker Brothers site for remediation, and reference to Baker Brothers 

having machined uranium slugs for Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

(known as the Clinton Laboratory at that time) and Hanford.

09/11/2002 3

DOE Legacy Management - Grand Junction Office A letter confirming the planned completion of Baker Brothers work for 

Clinton Laboratory in August 1944, FUSRAP documents and 

radiological surveys, 1943 site visits, April 1944 Clinton Laboratory 

uranium requirements, a 1943 accountability report, and the transfer and 

testing of swaged rods.

06/13/2011 69

DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office No relevant documents identified. 08/28/2012 0

DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office, Sanitized Records 

Holding Task Group Finding Aid

No relevant documents identified. 08/28/2012 0

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information No relevant non-publicly available documents identified. 07/25/2012 0

Federal Records Center (FRC) - Kansas City/Lenexa FUSRAP surveys and documentation, bioassay samples from the site 

remediation, and the remediation controlled area access log.

08/12/2008 12
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

58 of 61

Table A2-1: Data Capture Synopsis for Baker Brothers

Data Capture Information General Description of Documents Captured Date

Completed

Uploaded

To SRDB

Hagley Museum and Library Verification of Baker Brothers having machined 130 tons of uranium 

for the Clinton Laboratory.

09/29/2010 1

Hanford A search request was made on 08/13/2012. At this time all Hanford 

requests are on hold due to budget issues.

OPEN 0

Internet - Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) The 1995 baseline environmental management report for Manhattan 

Engineer District and AEC sites.

07/20/2012 2

Internet - DOE Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data 

Resource (CEDR)

No relevant documents identified. 08/23/2012 0

Internet - DOE Legacy Management Considered Sites Site fact sheet, FUSRAP documentation, and an aerial photograph of 

the site.

07/01/2012 5

Internet - DOE National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) - Nevada Site Office

No relevant documents identified. 07/01/2012 0

Internet - DOE OpenNet Historical references to Baker Brothers participation in the nuclear 

weapons complex.

12/31/2007 2

Internet - DOE OSTI Energy Citations An introduction to DOE's decommissioning experience, the 

investigation and mitigation of fire hazards from uranium turnings, and 

a review of Baker Brothers machining procedure. 

07/17/2012 3

Internet - DOE OSTI Information Bridge A detailed discussion of Baker Brothers processes and contracts and the 

1994 DOE general environmental impact statement for complex-wide 

environmental remediation.

06/22/2007 2

Internet - Google FUSRAP documents, confirmation that Baker Brothers received some 

uranium from Revere Copper and Brass, an Ohio Department of Health 

listing of radiological sites, and news articles.

07/07/2012 13

Internet - Hanford Declassified Document Retrieval System 

(DDRS)

A 1944 report of health hazards at Baker Brothers. 03/25/2010 1

Internet - Health Physics Journal No relevant documents identified. 08/23/2012 0

Internet - Journal of Occupational and Environmental 

Hygiene

No relevant documents identified. 08/23/2012 0

Internet - National Academies Press (NAP) No relevant documents identified. 07/01/2012 0

Internet - NIOSH A 2006 NIOSH report on residual contamination at Atomic Weapons 

Employer facilities.

01/25/2007 1

Internet - NRC Agencywide Document Access and 

Management (ADAMS) 

NRC evaluations of contaminated sites reported in the September 2006 

USA Today article, FUSRAP policies manual included as a response to 

a petition for rulemaking, and Baker Brothers identified as a FUSRAP 

site. 

09/03/2011 5

Internet - Savannah River Site No relevant documents identified. 08/23/2012 0
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

59 of 61

Table A2-1: Data Capture Synopsis for Baker Brothers

Data Capture Information General Description of Documents Captured Date

Completed

Uploaded

To SRDB

Internet - Toledo Public Library No relevant documents identified. 08/20/2012 0

Internet - University of Toledo No relevant documents identified. 08/20/2012 0

Internet - USACE/FUSRAP No relevant documents identified. 07/01/2012 0

Internet - US Transuranium and Uranium Registries No relevant documents identified. 07/01/2012 0

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) -

Atlanta

Surveys and air sampling at Baker Brothers, accountability reports, 

material transfers, and descriptions of health programs for Clinton 

Laboratory subcontractors.

05/01/2010 10

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) -

College Park

No relevant documents identified. 08/20/2012 0

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH)

The cost of the Baker Brothers Clinton Laboratory contract. 11/04/2008 1

Oak Ridge National Laboratory A report on health hazards at Baker Brothers and a reference to 

potential health hazard similarities between Baker Brothers and Joslyn 

Manufacturing and Supply.

09/07/2012 2

ORAU Team The ORAU Team Technical Information Bulletin on estimating the 

maximum plausible dose to atomic weapons employer workers.

02/09/2007 1

S. Cohen & Associates / NIOSH A report which identifies Baker Brothers as a source of uranium slugs 

for Hanford in 1944.

08/14/2003 1

Unknown FUSRAP documents, a description of Baker Brothers machining 

process dust and chip fire control, and Baker Brothers identified as a 

FUSRAP site. 

07/09/2004 22

TOTAL 156
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

60 of 61

Table A2-2: Databases Searched for Baker Brothers

Database/Source Keywords / Phrases Hits Selected

NOTE: Database search terms employed for each of the databases listed below are 

available in the Excel files called “Baker Brothers Rev 00 (83 13) 09-28-12 (2)”

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)

https://www.dtic.mil/

COMPLETED 07/11/2012

See Note above 10 1

DOE CEDR

https://www.orau.gov/cedr

COMPLETED 08/23/2012

See Note above 0 0

DOE Hanford DDRS

http://www2.hanford.gov/declass/

COMPLETED 07/01/2012

See Note above 0 0

DOE Legacy Management Considered Sites

http://www.lm.doe.gov/considered_Sites/

COMPLETED 07/01/2012

See Note above 55 2

DOE NNSA - Nevada Site Office

www.nv.doe.gov/main/search.htm

COMPLETED 07/01/2012

See Note above 0 0

DOE OpenNet

http://www.osti.gov/opennet/advancedsearch.jsp

COMPLETED 07/01/2012

See Note above 0 0

DOE OSTI Energy Citations

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/

COMPLETED 07/01/2012

See Note above 28 2

DOE OSTI Information Bridge

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/advancedsearch.jsp

COMPLETED 07/01/2012

See Note above 24 1

Google

http://www.google.com

COMPLETED 07/07/2012

See Note above 25,553 3

HP Journal

http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/pages/default.aspx

COMPLETED 08/23/2012

See Note above 0 0
SEC-00204 11-13-12 Baker Brothers

61 of 61

Table A2-2: Databases Searched for Baker Brothers

Database/Source Keywords / Phrases Hits Selected

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 

http://www.ijoeh.com/index.php/ijoeh

COMPLETED 08/23/2012

See Note above 0 0

National Academies Press

http://www.nap.edu/

COMPLETED 07/01/2012

See Note above 925 0

NRC ADAMS Reading Room

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html

COMPLETED 07/01/2012

See Note above 1,069 0

USACE/FUSRAP

http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap/

COMPLETED 07/01/2012

See Note above 0 0

U.S. Transuranium & Uranium Registries 

http://www.ustur.wsu.edu/

COMPLETED 07/01/2012

See Note above 0 0

Table A2-3: OSTI Documents Requested for Baker Brothers

Document Number Document Title Requested

Date

Received 

Date

DUH-10917

Ref ID: 116470

Project 9536, Metal Turnings - Fire Hazard, 8/27/1943 07/10/2012 07/17/2012

HW-3-92

Ref ID: 116471

Observation on Machining Speeds and Feeds, 3/2/1944 07/10/2012 07/17/2012